You are on page 1of 19

Case 2:14-cv-01542-SU

Document 1

Filed 09/26/14

Page 1 of 19

Foster A. Glass, OSB No. 751334


E-Mail: fosterg@bendcable.com
Attorney at Law
339 SW Century Drive, Suite 201
Bend, Oregon 97702
Telephone: (541) 317-0703
Fax: (541) 317-0736
Attorney for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


DISTRICT OF OREGON
SWEENEY GILLETTE, KENDRA
GILLETTE, and RICHARD HOYT,
Case No.
Plaintiffs,
COMPLAINT - 42 USC SECTION
1983, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
WITH PENDENT STATE CLAIMS

v.
MALHEUR COUNTY, Robert Speelman, Kirk
B. Miller, Lynn Gibson, Dawn Schooley, Larry
Hayhurst, Jack Noble, Rodger Huffman, Greg
Romans, Richard Harriman, Sheriff Brian
Wolfe, Travis Johnson, Bob Wroten, Dr. Bill
Barton, Kenneth Hoover, 6 Unknown Jane
Does and 6 Unknown John Does, personally
and individually,

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendants.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.
This is a civil action for damages brought under 42 USC Section 1983, the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, with pendent state claims, which arises
from Defendants protracted, retaliatory and conspiratorial misconduct, wherein Defendants
COMPLAINT - 42 USC SECTION 1983, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS WITH PENDENT STATE
CLAIMS
Page 1
LAW OFFICES OF FOSTER A. GLASS ATTORNEY AT LAW
339 SW Century Drive, Suite 201 Bend, Oregon 97702
Telephone (541) 317-0703 Fax (541) 317-0736 e-mail: fosterg@bendcable.com

Case 2:14-cv-01542-SU

Document 1

Filed 09/26/14

Page 2 of 19

intentionally, willfully and with deliberate indifference, have violated and continue to violate
Plaintiffs civil rights.
SUMMARY OF CAUSES OF ACTION
2.
Plaintiffs causes of action arise from information received after September 31, 2013,
in the form of copies of affidavits and warrants related to search warrants executed on
Plaintiffs property on September 26, 2012; and subsequent police reports, materials supplied
to the Malheur County District Attorney by police, defendants, and subsequent interviews of
witnesses who were contacted and who in many cases were threatened by law enforcement
officers and investigators with bogus, nondescript criminal charges as criminal coconspirators if they did not come clean and implicate Plaintiffs in criminal conduct. Recent
investigation reveals Defendants have continued to contact business associates of Plaintiffs in
Oklahoma and Texas, persons who transported cattle, and even Dr. Derby a veterinarian was
threatened with criminal prosecution, in an attempt to continue unjustified, retaliatory conduct
toward Plaintiffs (trying to prove criminal acts to justify Defendants misconduct and protect
them from litigation). Information from witnesses indicate Defendants continue to slander
and defame Plaintiffs in Oregon. The following is a summary of the causes of action arising
from Defendants conduct, which resulted in destruction and loss of their business, income,
home, and reputation, causing them to have to relocate to Oklahoma to start anew.
A.

Deprivation of Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment right to due process liberty


interest in property, income and business relationships.

B.

Fourth Amendment Civil Rights Violations - False Affidavit for Search Warrants
Deprivation of Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful
search and seizure and search upon general warrant:
Search warrants were obtained by providing false information on affidavits and by
omitting important details from the affidavits (See Exhibit 1 attached and incorporated

COMPLAINT - 42 USC SECTION 1983, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS WITH PENDENT STATE
CLAIMS
Page 2
LAW OFFICES OF FOSTER A. GLASS ATTORNEY AT LAW
339 SW Century Drive, Suite 201 Bend, Oregon 97702
Telephone (541) 317-0703 Fax (541) 317-0736 e-mail: fosterg@bendcable.com

Case 2:14-cv-01542-SU

Document 1

Filed 09/26/14

Page 3 of 19

by reference)..
(1).

False affidavits in warrant process and no probable cause for search warrants
secured for search of Plaintiffs property and on Dr. Derbys veterinarian
records on September 26, 2012 (search was obtained by misrepresentation of
facts to magistrate - with no objective facts of cattle theft supplied, which was
stated to be the purpose for the warrants). The affidavit makes much about
Plaintiffs purchasing cattle at kill plants, sale yards and processing plants.
The affiant then speculates, contrary to fact and law, that somehow the resale
of the cattle must constitute a scheme to sell stolen cattle.

(2).

Pole camera orders of June 30, 2011 and September 30, 2011. (See Exhibit
2 attached hereto and incorporated by reference).

False affidavits for search warrants obtained for an ongoing two year surveillance of
Plaintiffs property with a pole-camera. (No probable cause, a general warrant for ongoing
surveillance in violation of 18 USC Sec. 2133 and Oregon law, which limits the application
for a total of 60 days under federal law and 30 days under Oregon law). These affidavits and
orders are the precursors for the search warrants of September 26, 2012 and contain much of
the same information. The affidavits are filled with speculation, beliefs, based on conjecture,
deductive leaps, and misinformation to the magistrate, when the simple answer of Plaintiffs
conduct was already supplied by Dr. Derby and Sweeney Gillettes contact with Sheriff
Wolfe. Sheriff Wolfe was provided the information that Gillettes lawfully buys pregnant
cows at kill plants at $200-$400 under market price, nurses them to health and ends up with
two for the price of one, with a much higher market value; none of which is a violation of law.
The affidavits mislead the magistrate regarding the law and the facts regarding Plaintiffs
conduct. For example see Exhibit 2, affidavits for pole camera orders, at pages 16-18 (a
false, and factually unsupported allegation of theft of Cornwalls cow) pages 21-28. The
hand-written attorneys responses are intended to be incorporated into this complaint, and
COMPLAINT - 42 USC SECTION 1983, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS WITH PENDENT STATE
CLAIMS
Page 3
LAW OFFICES OF FOSTER A. GLASS ATTORNEY AT LAW
339 SW Century Drive, Suite 201 Bend, Oregon 97702
Telephone (541) 317-0703 Fax (541) 317-0736 e-mail: fosterg@bendcable.com

Case 2:14-cv-01542-SU

Document 1

Filed 09/26/14

Page 4 of 19

illustrates the examples of lack of factual foundation, speculation, deductive leaps, and the
contradictory positions taken by the affiant. In fact, the documents support that there was no
proof of the theft of Cornwalls cow by Gillette and that other individuals are referenced, and
that none of them know what happened to the cow. The affidavits for search warrant and the
search warrants issued are overly broad and also fail to provide probable cause, and fail to
establish the cattle will be found in any truck. (See warrants - Exhibit 3 attached and
incorporated by reference). Just one example of the defective process shows that no evidence
exists or is provided for the false statement (see assumptions at page 27 4 - Ex. 1) that Ric
Hoyt is a partner. He is not. No factual basis is provided for the general search of property
and all trucks listed at page 5 of Ex. 3 - warrant. No evidence is found to support the trucks at
the time searched, would contain or reveal stolen cattle or evidence of a crime. This is an
unlawful, general search warrant, without probable cause to search, and in violation of the
Fourth Amendment, U.S. Supreme Court case law and Oregon law. Also, Truck Number 6
on the warrant list belongs to Ric Hoyt - not a partner; and, if he was a partner, there is no
particularized evidence supplied to suggest a crime was committed or that the evidence of a
crime would be found by the search of a vehicle. It appears, based upon subsequent behavior
of the Defendants generally stopping and searching trucks at will, that they may have viewed
this warrant as a general warrant authorizing stops and searches at will, including the posting
of an officer at a closed weigh station, who turned on the open sign exclusively to stop
Plaintiffs truck. The officer did not know how, and did not weigh Plaintiffs truck, but
undertook an expanded, timely search looking for stolen cattle and found none. Some of the
stops of Plaintiffs trucks included shaving of cattle to inspect brands, subsequent stops of the
same trucks in other states, with shaving of the cattle, resulting in death of some of the cattle.
(3).

Unlawfully seizing property by false affidavit in the warrant process,


withholding property seized by search warrant after the Court had ordered the
property returned to Plaintiffs. A motion for contempt of court for failure to

COMPLAINT - 42 USC SECTION 1983, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS WITH PENDENT STATE
CLAIMS
Page 4
LAW OFFICES OF FOSTER A. GLASS ATTORNEY AT LAW
339 SW Century Drive, Suite 201 Bend, Oregon 97702
Telephone (541) 317-0703 Fax (541) 317-0736 e-mail: fosterg@bendcable.com

Case 2:14-cv-01542-SU

Document 1

Filed 09/26/14

Page 5 of 19

return the seized property was filed by Plaintiffs attorney November 28, 2012.
(4).

Unlawful trap and trace warrant based upon false affidavit, in violation of
federal law 18 USC Sec. 2133 and Oregon law, ORS 165.657-165.673.
Although not yet provided by Defendants, Plaintiffs have cause to believe that
Defendants may also have obtained an ongoing trap and trace based upon the
fact that Plaintiff Sweeney Gillette had called his ex-wife regarding a
legitimate matter and Plaintiffs attorney, almost instantaneously received a
call from a Malheur Co. Deputy D.A. alleging that Plaintiff was unlawfully
interfering with a witness. At that time Plaintiffs were unaware of an ongoing
investigation or that the ex-wife was a potential witness (which she was not).
The alleged witness indicated she did not report the phone call to anyone.

(5).

Violation of Oregon law in incorrectly using a Grand Jury subpoena as a tool


to obtain information, when there was no Grand Jury called. Attached as
Exhibit 4 is a copy of a Criminal Subpoena Duces Tecum Grand Jury to the
Lebanon Auction Yard dated January 10, 2013 commanding the production of
records relating to Plaintiffs cattle business transactions with the Lebanon
Auction Yard. This demonstrates that either a grand jury was held and no
indictment returned, or that the grand jury process was improperly utilized in
the form of a subpoena issued for the purpose of gathering information. In any
event, the result was an additional slander and defamation on Plaintiffs
character interference with a business relationship.

C.

Pendent State Claims: involving an ongoing course of conduct by Defendants,


of slander, defamation and interference with business relationships from 2011
to the present. Defendants affidavit for search warrant dated September 26,
2012 serves as a litany of the conspiratorial conduct of law enforcement
activities, including improper stops, harassment, shaving cattle, contacting

COMPLAINT - 42 USC SECTION 1983, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS WITH PENDENT STATE
CLAIMS
Page 5
LAW OFFICES OF FOSTER A. GLASS ATTORNEY AT LAW
339 SW Century Drive, Suite 201 Bend, Oregon 97702
Telephone (541) 317-0703 Fax (541) 317-0736 e-mail: fosterg@bendcable.com

Case 2:14-cv-01542-SU

Document 1

Filed 09/26/14

Page 6 of 19

business associates of Plaintiffs, but does not confirm a single stolen cow.
JURISDICTION
3.
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1331
and 1343. This action arises under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution, pursuant to 42 USC 1983 and 1988 and pendent jurisdiction is asserted over
Plaintiffs state law claims under 28 USC 1367. Most of the acts and practices alleged
herein occurred in Malheur County, Oregon.
PARTIES
(Plaintiffs)
4.
At all times material Plaintiffs Sweeney Gillette and Kendra Gillette were citizens of
the United States residing first in Malheur County and then in the state of Oklahoma.
5.
At all material times Plaintiff Richard Hoyt was a citizen of the United States and
resided in Malheur County, Oregon. Richard Hoyt is Kendra Gillettes father who owns a
trucking enterprise used in transporting Gillettes cattle.
GOVERNMENTAL DEFENDANTS
6.
All Defendants are sued personally and individually and in their official capacity, and
at all times material, Defendants were acting under color of law as law enforcement officers
for Malheur County Sheriffs Office, The Idaho State Department of Agriculture, Idaho State
Brand Department, Oregon Department of Agriculture. Defendants, through their intentional,
willful conduct and with deliberate indifference to the civil rights of Plaintiffs, conspired to
deprive and did deprive Plaintiffs of their civil and constitutional rights secured by the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
COMPLAINT - 42 USC SECTION 1983, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS WITH PENDENT STATE
CLAIMS
Page 6
LAW OFFICES OF FOSTER A. GLASS ATTORNEY AT LAW
339 SW Century Drive, Suite 201 Bend, Oregon 97702
Telephone (541) 317-0703 Fax (541) 317-0736 e-mail: fosterg@bendcable.com

Case 2:14-cv-01542-SU

Document 1

Filed 09/26/14

Page 7 of 19

7.
At all times material Malheur County was and is a governmental entity and a political
subdivision duly organized under Oregon laws. The Defendant public body was responsible
for the conduct of its sheriff and deputies for the violation of 42 USC 1983 and liable for the
tortious conduct of its agents and employees. Malheur County has a history of condoning and
ratifying police misconduct. After receiving the tort claim notice the County failed to
discipline, train or correct the conduct of its employees, which constitutes condonation and
ratification of its employees misconduct.
8.
At all times material Sheriff Brian Wolfe (hereinafter Wolfe) was the elected sheriff
of Malheur County, Oregon, employed by Malheur County, Oregon and had a duty to
supervise, correct and discipline his deputies to protect citizens, having been sworn to uphold
the laws of the state of Oregon, the Oregon Constitution and the U.S. Constitutional rights of
citizens. Defendant Wolfe failed to advise, supervise, train, review, correct, or discipline his
officers. After receiving the tort claim notice, no disciplinary or corrective action was taken.
His failure to do so constitutes condonation and ratification of his officers misconduct. The
sheriff has condoned and participated in covering for his officers known misconduct and
false police reports and civil rights violations, and has failed to protect citizens from known
civil rights violations.
9.
At all times material Defendant Robert Speelman was a Sergeant with the Malheur
County Sheriffs Department; and was the president of the now-defunct Oregon Livestock and
Rural Crime Investigative Association (administratively dissolved 3/30/2012).
10.
At all times material Defendant Greg Romans was a Malheur County Sheriffs
Deputy, employed by the Malheur County Sheriffs Office in Malheur County, Oregon.
COMPLAINT - 42 USC SECTION 1983, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS WITH PENDENT STATE
CLAIMS
Page 7
LAW OFFICES OF FOSTER A. GLASS ATTORNEY AT LAW
339 SW Century Drive, Suite 201 Bend, Oregon 97702
Telephone (541) 317-0703 Fax (541) 317-0736 e-mail: fosterg@bendcable.com

Case 2:14-cv-01542-SU

Document 1

Filed 09/26/14

Page 8 of 19

11.
At all times material Defendant Bob Wroten was a Malheur County Sheriffs Deputy,
employed by the Malheur County Sheriffs Office in Malheur County, Oregon; and the former
secretary of the now-defunct Oregon Livestock and Rural Crime Investigative Association.
12.
At all times material Defendant Richard Harriman was a Sergeant with the Malheur
County Sheriffs Office, employed by the Malheur County Sheriffs Office in Malheur
County, Oregon.
13.
At all times material Defendant Kirk B. Miller was an investigator employed by the
US Department of Agriculture, based in Boise, Idaho.
14.
At all times material Defendant Lynn Gibson was an Idaho State Brand Inspector,
employed by the State of Idaho Department of Agriculture, based in Weiser, Idaho.
15.
At all times material Defendant Dawn Schooley was employed by the Idaho State
Department of Agriculture, based in Boise, Idaho.
16.
At all times material Defendant Larry Hayhurst was employed by the Idaho State
Brand Inspector, based in Meridian, Idaho.
17.
At all times material Defendant Jack Noble was employed by the Oregon Department
of Agriculture, based in Salem, Oregon.
18.
At all times material Defendant Rodger Huffman was employed by the Oregon
Department of Agriculture as the head of the Oregon Brand Department, based in Salem,
COMPLAINT - 42 USC SECTION 1983, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS WITH PENDENT STATE
CLAIMS
Page 8
LAW OFFICES OF FOSTER A. GLASS ATTORNEY AT LAW
339 SW Century Drive, Suite 201 Bend, Oregon 97702
Telephone (541) 317-0703 Fax (541) 317-0736 e-mail: fosterg@bendcable.com

Case 2:14-cv-01542-SU

Document 1

Filed 09/26/14

Page 9 of 19

Oregon.
19.
At all times material Defendant Dr. Bill Barton was an Idaho State
Veterinarian/Administrator with the Division of Animal Industries Department, Idaho State
Department of Agriculture, based in Boise, Idaho.
20.
At all times material Defendant Kenneth Hoover is a senior investigator with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, based in Fort Collins,
Colorado.
21.
At all times material Defendants acted in concert to violate Plaintiffs civil rights and
failed to protect Plaintiffs from officers unlawful conduct and violations of their civil rights
in violation of their duty provided by 42 USC Sec. 1983.
ADDITIONAL FACTS
22.
On September 16, 2011, Attorney Brian Zanotelli met with Sheriff Wolfe to explain in
detail Sweeney Gillettes business practices and compliance with Oregon laws. On
November 29, 2011, Sheriff Wolfe called Sweeney Gillette and apologized for searching
through Plaintiffs garbage, claiming a sergeant and another deputy made him do it. He
also asked Sweeney Gillette to help train his deputies about understanding brands and
traceability. This was after Kendra Gillettes September 27, 2011 newspaper article on
Animal Traceability Should be Mandatory. See Exhibit 5 attached and incorporated herein.
Gillettes were advocating following the modern computerized system which would eventually
do away with the animal pain of multiple brands and confusion, saving millions of dollars.
This also would have eliminated many of the expensive fees and many of the brand inspection
jobs. Kendra Gillette also spoke at livestock meetings and th brand inspection agents were
COMPLAINT - 42 USC SECTION 1983, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS WITH PENDENT STATE
CLAIMS
Page 9
LAW OFFICES OF FOSTER A. GLASS ATTORNEY AT LAW
339 SW Century Drive, Suite 201 Bend, Oregon 97702
Telephone (541) 317-0703 Fax (541) 317-0736 e-mail: fosterg@bendcable.com

Case 2:14-cv-01542-SU

Document 1

Filed 09/26/14

Page 10 of 19

unhappy with her. She believes the subsequent interest in running them out of business was at
least in part, retaliation for her advocacy to make Oregon a modern no brand state.
23.
Upon Plaintiffs investigation, they have found that Defendants investigators have
contacted approximately 150 customers. Veterinarian, Dr. Derby was offered immunity if he
cooperated and threatened with criminal prosecution if he did not, and had a search warrant
issued when he clearly explained how and why Sweeney Gillettes operation was lawful and
that he (Dr. Derby) had conducted proper certification.
24.
Chance Stringer, a former Malheur County sheriffs deputy who did livestock
inspections. At every meeting with law enforcement he would hear Defendant Speelman and
others focus on Sweeney Gillette and how they were going to nail him. When Deputy
Stringer spoke up on behalf of Gillette, attempting to explain why they were wrong, and that
Sweeney Gillette was running a legitimate operation, he was threatened with criminal
prosecution and accusations that he was part of Gillettes criminal conspiracy. The officers at
the meeting were making statements indicating their jealousy at Gillettes success, stating that
he must be stealing cattle or involved in criminal conduct to be that successful. Chance
Stringer believed Speelman was making false reports, wanted no part of the witch hunt and
left his employment with the Malheur County Sheriffs office.
25.
A report from the Malheur County Sheriffs Office (Ex. 21 of the Search Warrant
Affidavit) is a report by Defendant Robert Speelman referencing persons involved in the
investigation and sets forth false information that shows they thought they had carte blanche
to follow Plaintiffs trucks, have them stopped and searched, have the trucks stopped in
Nevada, and then make a false statement about a citation being issued for eight head of cows
now having legitimate brands. (See Exhibit 6 attached and incorporated herein).
COMPLAINT - 42 USC SECTION 1983, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS WITH PENDENT STATE
CLAIMS
Page 10
LAW OFFICES OF FOSTER A. GLASS ATTORNEY AT LAW
339 SW Century Drive, Suite 201 Bend, Oregon 97702
Telephone (541) 317-0703 Fax (541) 317-0736 e-mail: fosterg@bendcable.com

Case 2:14-cv-01542-SU

Document 1

Filed 09/26/14

Page 11 of 19

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION


DEPRIVATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS LIBERTY
INTEREST IN PLAINTIFFS RIGHT TO CONDUCT BUSINESS, TO INCOME,
PERSONAL PROPERTY, BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR BANK
26.
Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-25 as though set forth fully herein.
27.
After receipt of police records and interviews with witnesses, Plaintiffs have
discovered that as far back as 2011, Defendant officers undertook a course of conduct
wherein, through word and conduct, made statements to Plaintiffs acquaintances and
business associates, including livestock processors, brokers and shippers, that Plaintiffs were
cattle thieves and that Plaintiffs would soon be going to jail. Defendants then followed
Plaintiffs cattle trucks to livestock yards and kill plants (including out of state plants) and
stopped production while they pregnancy tested and/or shaved each animal to check brands, in
their attempt to prove Plaintiffs were stealing or switching cattle. No stolen or switched
cattle were ever discovered in any of the warrantless, speculative searches which were
conducted without probable cause; and no stolen cattle or evidence of stolen or switched
cattle was ever found in any of the Oregon searches of Plaintiffs property and trucks. Search
warrants were obtained by false affidavits and representations to the court (see attached
Exhibit 1).
28.
On information and belief the Malheur County Sheriffs Office, Sgt. Speelman, and
other Defendants agreed and conspired to contact Plaintiffs bank and again alleged that
Plaintiffs were being investigated for cattle theft and that the bank should protect itself
because Plaintiffs would soon be arrested. Plaintiff was never arrested. Based upon the
information, the bank seized Plaintiffs cattle and assets, refused to renew their loan, and
COMPLAINT - 42 USC SECTION 1983, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS WITH PENDENT STATE
CLAIMS
Page 11
LAW OFFICES OF FOSTER A. GLASS ATTORNEY AT LAW
339 SW Century Drive, Suite 201 Bend, Oregon 97702
Telephone (541) 317-0703 Fax (541) 317-0736 e-mail: fosterg@bendcable.com

Case 2:14-cv-01542-SU

Document 1

Filed 09/26/14

Page 12 of 19

foreclosed on the loan (which was not in default). Defendants conduct caused Plaintiffs
Gillette economic damages, through the seizure of cattle, death of cattle, loss of profits, and
attorney fees, in the amount of $6,000,000.00, and Plaintiff Richard Hoyt economic damages
in the amount of $300,000.00.
29.
Plaintiffs had a successful business and a home in Oregon where they were raising
their family. Defendants ongoing conduct in repeatedly contacting business associates and
giving them false information and creating false impressions about Plaintiffs business
practices, and openly slandering Plaintiffs, was the direct and ultimate cause of the destruction
of Plaintiffs business. Plaintiffs were forced to sell their home and other real estate holdings
and to relocate with their family to Oklahoma and to rebuild their business and reputation.
30.
Plaintiffs recently within the last few months and even with the past month, have
received information that Malheur County Defendants, defendant Hoover, and others have
continued to slander Plaintiffs, calling them cattle thieves, resulting in an investigator from
Texas contacting business associates, attempting to obtain evidence to provide a basis for
criminal charges against Plaintiffs in Oregon.
31.
Plaintiffs investigation has revealed that Kenneth Hoover contacted numerous
business associates of Plaintiffs and told them Sweeney Gillette was dishonest and was going
to jail.
32.
Hoover and other investigators still utilize the investigative method of contacting
persons, telling them that they have violated the law, and if they dont cooperate, these people
will be arrested right along with Sweeney and Kendra Gillette because, ...we know you are
involved.
COMPLAINT - 42 USC SECTION 1983, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS WITH PENDENT STATE
CLAIMS
Page 12
LAW OFFICES OF FOSTER A. GLASS ATTORNEY AT LAW
339 SW Century Drive, Suite 201 Bend, Oregon 97702
Telephone (541) 317-0703 Fax (541) 317-0736 e-mail: fosterg@bendcable.com

Case 2:14-cv-01542-SU

Document 1

Filed 09/26/14

Page 13 of 19

33.
The actions of Defendants, as set forth above, stigmatized Plaintiffs, causing them to
be the object of scorn and ridicule, thereby violating Plaintiffs liberty interest in their prior
good name and reputation in their community, and caused not only a substantial loss of
income, but great emotional distress for which Kendra Gillette required medical treatment,
suffering physical consequences.
34.
Defendants conduct was intentional, willful, and they acted with malice and in bad
faith and Plaintiffs have suffered, not only financial loss in an amount to be proven at trial, but
also great emotional distress from anxiety, humiliation, fear, embarrassment, sense of
degradation, stress, and physical symptoms of stress, and are individually entitled to:
A.

Non-economic damages for emotional distress, in an amount to be determined


by the jury.

B.

Punitive damages against the individual defendants in an amount to be


determined at trial.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
GOVERNMENTAL LIABILITY
(MALHEUR COUNTY)
35.

Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-34 as though set forth fully herein.


36.
Sheriff Wolfe, as supervisor had contact with Sweeney Gillettes attorney on
September 16, 2011 and with Plaintiff Sweeney Gillette on November 29, 2011. Malheur
County was notified of potential tort liability on August 1, 2012, The County was well aware
of the ongoing conduct of its deputies which then continued unabated with continued slander,
false reports, search warrants September 26, 2012, and contact with Plaintiffs bank with
COMPLAINT - 42 USC SECTION 1983, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS WITH PENDENT STATE
CLAIMS
Page 13
LAW OFFICES OF FOSTER A. GLASS ATTORNEY AT LAW
339 SW Century Drive, Suite 201 Bend, Oregon 97702
Telephone (541) 317-0703 Fax (541) 317-0736 e-mail: fosterg@bendcable.com

Case 2:14-cv-01542-SU

Document 1

Filed 09/26/14

Page 14 of 19

additional false and defamatory conduct leading to the destruction of Plaintiffs reputation,
bank relationship, business, income, and loss incurred by having to sell their home and move
across the country.
37.
At all times material herein, Defendant Malheur County was and is a governmental
entity and a political subdivision duly organized under Oregon laws. The Defendant public
body was responsible for the conduct of its sheriff and deputies for the violation of 42 USC
1983 and liable for the tortious conduct of its agents and employees. Malheur County has a
history of condoning and ratifying police misconduct in complaints of civil rights violations
rather than correcting or showing disapproval of police conduct. After receiving the tort
claim notice the County failed to discipline, train or correct the conduct of its employees,
which constitutes condonation and ratification of its employees misconduct, but rather,
proceeded on in their willful , deliberate invasion of Plaintiffs civil rights
38.
At all times material herein, Defendant Sheriff Wolfe was the elected sheriff of
Malheur County, Oregon, employed by Malheur County, Oregon and had a duty to supervise,
correct and discipline his deputies to protect citizens from unlawful prosecution and false
charges, having been sworn to uphold the laws of the state of Oregon, the Oregon
Constitution and the U.S. Constitutional rights of citizens. Defendant Wolfe failed to advise,
supervise, train, review, correct, or discipline his officers. Even after he acknowledged to
Plaintiffs his awareness, he continued to allow his deputies to proceed, providing no
corrective action was taken. Further, after receiving a statutory tort claim notice, no
disciplinary or corrective action was taken. His failure to do so constitutes condonation and
ratification of his officers misconduct.
39.
Examples of prior and other condonations of violations of civil rights for
COMPLAINT - 42 USC SECTION 1983, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS WITH PENDENT STATE
CLAIMS
Page 14
LAW OFFICES OF FOSTER A. GLASS ATTORNEY AT LAW
339 SW Century Drive, Suite 201 Bend, Oregon 97702
Telephone (541) 317-0703 Fax (541) 317-0736 e-mail: fosterg@bendcable.com

Case 2:14-cv-01542-SU

Document 1

Filed 09/26/14

Page 15 of 19

which neither the sheriff, nor the County Commissioners corrected or disciplined, but rather
continued to attempt to cover up and condone, including false police reports are: Mark
Casterline v. Malheur County (USDC Case No. 08CV6169-HO); and recently Malheur
County deputies with sheriff and county approval, violated the civil rights of two men, and
writing false police reports to cover up their civil rights violations. (See Ex. 7 attached and
incorporated herein).
40.
In condoning the conduct of the Countys officers, who were acting in the course and
scope of their employment, as set forth above, the County is liable for all damages caused by
all of its employees and officers. Plaintiffs are entitled to economic and noneconomic
damages in an amount to be determined by the jury.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
FOURTH AMENDMENT CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE
FALSE AFFIDAVIT FOR SEARCH WARRANTS AND POLE CAMERA WARRANTS
41.
Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-40 as though set forth fully herein (making specific
reference to pages 2-5).
42.
Search warrants were obtained by providing false information on affidavits and by
omitting important details from the affidavits.
43.
Defendants intentionally and/or with reckless disregard for the truth, made false
statements material to his affidavit in support of the warrant application.
44.
Defendants are not entitled to a grant of qualified immunity based upon his omission
COMPLAINT - 42 USC SECTION 1983, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS WITH PENDENT STATE
CLAIMS
Page 15
LAW OFFICES OF FOSTER A. GLASS ATTORNEY AT LAW
339 SW Century Drive, Suite 201 Bend, Oregon 97702
Telephone (541) 317-0703 Fax (541) 317-0736 e-mail: fosterg@bendcable.com

Case 2:14-cv-01542-SU

Document 1

Filed 09/26/14

Page 16 of 19

of material facts from the search warrant applications, and/or his intentional or reckless false
statement of alleged facts which were material to the issuance of the warrants.
45.
As a direct and consequential result of the above misconduct Plaintiff was damaged as
follows:
A.

Economic damages in the approximate amount of $6,000,000.00 for Plaintiffs


Gillette ;

B.

Economic damages in the approximate amount of $300,000.00 for Plaintiff Richard


Hoyt.

C.

Non-economic damages for emotional distress, in an amount to be determined by the


jury.

D.

Punitive damages against each of the individual defendants in an amount to be


determined by the jury.

E.

Costs incurred in this action and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 42 USC 1942.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
SLANDER AND DEFAMATION
(Pendent State Claim Against Officers and Malheur County)
46.
Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-45 as though set forth fully herein.
47.
Defendants made false, slanderous and defamatory statements alleging theft of cattle

and dishonesty, which is defamation per se.


48.
Defendants actions in failing to repair the damage to Plaintiffs reputation even after a
tort claim notice or they otherwise were made aware of the damage, was willful, malicious;
and Defendants entire pattern of conduct consisted of an extraordinary transgression of the
COMPLAINT - 42 USC SECTION 1983, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS WITH PENDENT STATE
CLAIMS
Page 16
LAW OFFICES OF FOSTER A. GLASS ATTORNEY AT LAW
339 SW Century Drive, Suite 201 Bend, Oregon 97702
Telephone (541) 317-0703 Fax (541) 317-0736 e-mail: fosterg@bendcable.com

Case 2:14-cv-01542-SU

Document 1

Filed 09/26/14

Page 17 of 19

bounds of socially tolerable conduct and/or exceeded the reasonable limit of social toleration.
49.
As a result of Defendants conduct Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional distress
including but not limited to, mental anguish, anxiety, humiliation, fear, shame, embarrassment
and physical distress resulting from Defendants conduct, not adequately protected by other
remedies in the amount of $1,000,000, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined
by the jury.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
50.
Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-49 as though set forth fully herein.
51.
Defendants entire pattern of conduct consisted of an extraordinary transgression of
the bounds of socially tolerable conduct and/or exceeded the reasonable limit of social
toleration.
52.
Defendants knew their conduct would cause severe emotional distress to Plaintiff
and/or Defendants acted despite a high probability that the emotional distress would result. In
fact, Defendants knew that their conduct that their conduct above described, including their
attempt to get the District Attorney to prosecute, and for the Defendants to plead to bogus
charges, would cause great emotional distress. Further, Defendants were aware that their
conduct had destroyed Plaintiffs livelihood and reputation.
53.
Nonetheless, the Defendants acted intentionally, willfully and maliciously.

COMPLAINT - 42 USC SECTION 1983, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS WITH PENDENT STATE
CLAIMS
Page 17
LAW OFFICES OF FOSTER A. GLASS ATTORNEY AT LAW
339 SW Century Drive, Suite 201 Bend, Oregon 97702
Telephone (541) 317-0703 Fax (541) 317-0736 e-mail: fosterg@bendcable.com

Case 2:14-cv-01542-SU

Document 1

Filed 09/26/14

Page 18 of 19

54.
As a result of Defendants conduct Plaintiff suffered from severe emotional distress
including but not limited to, mental anguish, anxiety, humiliation, fear, shame, embarrassment
and physical distress resulting from Defendants conduct, not adequately protected by other
remedies in the amount of $1,000,000.
55.
On all federal claims, Plaintiffs are entitled to their reasonable attorney fees and costs
pursuant to 42 USC Sec. 1983 and 1988.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendants as follows:
1.

First Cause of Action, Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process, Liberty
Interest:
A.

Economic Damages in the Amount $6,000,000.00 for Sweeney and Kendra


Gillette.

B.

Economic Damages in the amount of $300,000.00 for Richard Hoyt.

C.

Non-economic damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00 for emotional distress


for each of the plaintiffs.

D.

Punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury against each of the


individual defendants.

2.

Second Cause of Action - Governmental Liability:


A.

On each of Plaintiffs claims, judgment against Malheur County for economic


damages as set forth in A. and B of the first cause of action

B.
3.

Damages for emotional distress as set forth in C above.

Third Cause of Action - Unlawful Search and Seizure and False Affidavit in the
Warrant Process, against all defendants and against Malheur County:
A.

Economic Damages in the Amount $6,000,000.00 for Sweeney and Kendra


Gillette.

COMPLAINT - 42 USC SECTION 1983, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS WITH PENDENT STATE
CLAIMS
Page 18
LAW OFFICES OF FOSTER A. GLASS ATTORNEY AT LAW
339 SW Century Drive, Suite 201 Bend, Oregon 97702
Telephone (541) 317-0703 Fax (541) 317-0736 e-mail: fosterg@bendcable.com

Case 2:14-cv-01542-SU

Document 1

Filed 09/26/14

Page 19 of 19

B.

Economic Damages in the amount of $300,000.00 for Richard Hoyt.

C.

Non-economic damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00 for emotional distress


for each of the plaintiffs.

D.

Punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury against each of the


individual defendants only.

4.

Fourth Cause of Action - Slander and Defamation:


A.

Economic Damages in the Amount $6,000,000.00 for Sweeney and Kendra


Gillette.

B.

Economic Damages in the amount of $300,000.00 for Richard Hoyt.

C.

Non-economic damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00 for emotional distress


for each of the plaintiffs.

D.

Punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury against each of the


individual defendants.

5.

Fifth Cause of Action - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:


A.

Economic Damages in the Amount $6,000,000.00 for Sweeney and Kendra


Gillette.

B.

Economic Damages in the amount of $300,000.00 for Richard Hoyt.

C.

Non-economic damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00 for emotional distress


for each of the plaintiffs.

D.

Punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury against each of the


individual defendants.

6.

Plaintiffs are entitled to their reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 USC
Sec. 1983 and 1988.
DATED this 26th day of September, 2014.

/s/Foser A. Glass
Foster A. Glass OSB No. 751334
Attorney for Plaintiffs

COMPLAINT - 42 USC SECTION 1983, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS WITH PENDENT STATE
CLAIMS
Page 19
LAW OFFICES OF FOSTER A. GLASS ATTORNEY AT LAW
339 SW Century Drive, Suite 201 Bend, Oregon 97702
Telephone (541) 317-0703 Fax (541) 317-0736 e-mail: fosterg@bendcable.com

You might also like