IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH DISTRICT

Schwab et. al.
Appellant,
v.

CASE NO. 16-3284

Appellant's Brief

Kansas et. al.

Appellee's

____________________________________________________________________________
____
Joint Brief of Appellant's
COMES NOW APPELLANT'S AMELIA SCHWAB, RAYMOND SCHWAB AND
TYELER ALLISON in propria persona requesting this Court review and overturn District
Judge Hon. Crabtree's denial of preliminary injunctions on Sept 8, 2016 and grant relief from
the egregious, malicious, intentional deprivation of due process and violations of civil rights
and liberties being inflicted upon the Appellant's by the defendant's in the District Court Case.
HISTORY
1. March 31 2016 Appellant's filed a violations of Civil rights and Conspiracy to
deprive rights under Section's 1983 and 1985 of the U.S. Code.
Appeal Brief

2. April 25, 2016 the complaint was amended for the first time.
3. June 27th, 2016 Plaintiff's filed a second amended complaint .
4. July 28, 2016 Hon Judge Crabtree ordered the revised complaint to be modified to
address jurisdictional concerns.
5. Aug 26, 2016 Plaintiff's/Appellant's revised second amended complaint was filed by
leave of the Court, per request of the District Judge. With the revised Second Amended
Complaint the Plaintiff's filed a request for a Temporary Restraining order and Motion for
Preliminary injunctions which was set for hearing September 8th of 2016 where the preliminary
injunctions were denied.
6. Appeal of the denial of preliminary injunctions was filed to the 10th Circuit Sept 12,
2016.
I. Factual and Legal Background
PRO SE STANDARD OF REVIEW
7.

Because Appellant's are pro se, the Court has a higher standard when faced with a motion for

injunctive relief, White V. Bloom, 621 F.2d 276 makes this point clear and states :A court faced with a
motion for injunctive relief, a pro se motion, the court must read the complaint's allegations expansively,
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972), and take them as true
for purposes of deciding whether they state a claim. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322, 92 S. Ct. 1079, 1081,
31 L. Ed. 2D 263(1972).
8.

Appeal Brief

Pro se litigants' court submissions are to be construed liberally and held to less stringent

standards than submissions of lawyers. If the court can reasonably read the submissions, it should do so despite
failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or
litigant's unfamiliarity with rule requirements. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d
551 (1982);Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)(quoting Conleyv.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957));Haines v. Kerner, 404U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594,
30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972);McDowell v. Delaware State Police, 88F.3d 188, 189 (3rd Cir. 1996 );United States v.
Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3rd Cir. 1992)(holding pro se petition cannot be held to same standard as pleadings
drafted by attorneys); Thenv.I.N.S., 58 F.Supp.2d 422, 429 (D.N.J. 1999).
9.

The courts provide pro se parties wide latitude when construing their pleadings and papers.

When interpreting pro se papers, the Court should use common sense to determine what relief the party desires
special obligation to construe pro se litigants' pleadings liberally); Poling v. K.HovnanianEnterprises, 99
F.Supp.2d 502, 506-07 (D.N.J. 2000).Appellant's have the right to submit pro se briefs on appeal, even
though they may be in artfully drawn but the court can reasonably read and understand them. See,Vega
v.Johnson, 149 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1998). Courts will go to particular pains to protect pro se litigants against
consequences of technical errors if injustice would otherwise result., U.S.v. Sanchez, 88 F.3d 1243 (D.C.Cir.
1996).
10.

Moreover, "the court is under a duty to examine the complaint to determine if the allegations

provide for relief on any possible theory."Bonner v.CircuitCourtofSt.Louis,526 F.2d 1331, 1334 (8th Cir. 1975 )
(quoting Bramlet v.Wilson,495F.2d 714,716 (8thCir. 1974)). Thus, if this court were to entertain any motion, this
court would have to apply the standards of White v. Bloom. Furthermore, if there is any possible theory that
would entitle the Appellant's to relief, even one that the Appellant's hasn't thought of, the court cannot dismiss or
uphold the trial courts ruling. Connecticut articulated a standard similar to that used in the federal courts. In
Appeal Brief

Cersosimo the Supreme Court stated: It is our established policy to allow great latitude to a litigant who, either
by choice or necessity, represents himself in legal proceedings, so far as such latitude is consistent with the just
rights of any adverse party . . . .Cersosimo v.Cersosimo, 449 A.2d 1026 (1982)
11.

Raymond and Amelia Schwab (SCHWAB'S) are the Biological and or Legal

Guardians of five minor children that were kidnapped by maternal family April 15th 2015, taken
to a jurisdiction where the children did not reside (Defendant's of the Civil action Riley
County, Riley County Police and Carla Swartz) where they were taken into police protective
custody , without warrant or statutory authority, April 27th 2015. Riley County Police refused to
take a criminal complaint from the Schwab's and continue to refuse to release documentation
concerning the seizure. Defendant Swartz is now retired from the RCPD.
12.

Tyeler Allison is the eldest biological sibling of the five children. Mr. Allison

lived with his siblings and parent's in Topeka Ks. Prior to the children being seized he moved to
Colorado, where his parents were moving to as Mr. Schwab had transferred his job with the
Dept of Veteran Affairs. Corresponding to the Dept of Children and Family Services
investigation which concluded the allegations of emotional abuse lodged against the Schwab's
was unsubstantiated, Mr. Allison testified for his parents that the allegations against them were
false and an attempt at the maternal family to interfere with their parental custody as they had
done before in the past. After said testimony the Dept of Children and Family Services DCF,
KVC (Private Child placement contractor), Rhonda Eisenbarger (KVC Caseworker), Deja
Jackson (KVC Caseworker), Riley County (Through its agents), Riley County Prosecutor Barry
Wilkerson and his assistant Bethany Field's, Attorney Ad Litem Lora Ingels, and Judge John F.

Appeal Brief

Bosch, in joint action, retaliated against exculpatory witness, Tyeler Allison, through restricting
all access to his siblings and is still restricting his contact with his siblings for no lawful reason,
attempted to subject him to intrusions of his privacy through drug testing though no allegations
were ever lodged against him, and will not allow him access to his siblings though the same
treatment does not carry over to any other family member that conspired with the above
defendants to unlawfully seize the Schwab Children.
13.

On April 27th 2015 five of the six children of RAYMOND AND AMELIA

SCHWAB (SCHWAB'S) were seized by DEFENDANT/Appellee's Riley County Police

Department contrary to Kansas Statue K.S.A. 38-2231(b)(1) and K.S.A. 38-2232(a)(1)
violating Mr and Mrs SCHWAB'S due process, after maternal relatives kidnapped the children
and removed them from the guardian and county where they had been authorized to remain,
while the SCHWAB'S were packing to move to COLORADO. RCPD Detective and defendant
SWARTZ verified on record and in the police report that the SCHWAB children were safe and
scheduled to be brought in to the RCPD, without the parents knowledge or permission, and
were interrogated without the parents presence or permission. Defendant SWARTZ admitted in
her testimony during the adjudication hearing that none of the information and accusations
against the SCHWAB'S was corroborated by any investigation or evidence, AT ALL, and
neither were the SCHWAB's contacted or other law enforcement contacted to investigate prior
to seizing the children contrary to law and statue.
14.

Defendant/appellee RCPD has further violated the SCHWAB's due process by

refusing to investigate the kidnapping of the SCHWAB children by maternal family, and the
Appeal Brief

concurrent crimes of filing false police reports by D.B. and the maternal family when evidence
was abundant that the maternal family interfered with parental custody by refusing to return the
SCHWAB children, fleeing to another county when the Dickinson county sheriff visited the
maternal grandmothers house and told them to return the children, and then knowingly filed
fraudulent police reports. RCPD has also repeatedly informed the SCHWAB's they will not
release the police reports which is a further hindrance of their right to due process and
confronting their accusers.
15.

On April 29th, 2015 a temporary custody hearing was held without the Schwab's

being present, or properly notified according to the law, and it would be weeks before they
even received any documentation pertaining to these proceedings all while being restricted
from their children contrary to the policies by which removal is supposed to occur under the
Kansas Plan for Title IV funding, Constitutional rights to due process, and the Kansas Statues
and procedures governing such a removal
17.

May 13, 2015 a temporary custody hearing was held where appellee's

JOHNSON, INGLES, WILKERSON, BOSCH, JACKSON, EISENGARGER, ROBINSON,

and FIELDS conspired to deprive THE SCHWAB'S of their due process and their 4th
amendment protections from illegal search and seizure by declaring no hearing would occur
unless the PLAINTIFFS voluntarily and willingly waived their 4th amendment protections,
through drug testing, without cause as Mr. Schwab was late to the hearing and the reasons
given by judge BOSCH for ordering the search are contradictory to the record and further proof
of multiple parties working in a joint effort to deprive him of his Constitutional Protections and
utilize manufacture evidence.
Appeal Brief

18.

When Mr. Schwab objected to such a threat to his right to due process, as well as

the refusal of BOSCH to issue the order on the record and from the bench thereby granting Mr
SCHWAB the right to object on the record, BOSCH came out of chambers while the
PLAINTIFF was surrounded by police, social workers and hostile parties and in an attempt to
intimidate, threaten, and harass Mr. Schwab yelled in the defendants face while not even in
judicial raiment My name is Judge BOSCH and you will submit to a UA, I order it. Plaintiff
submitted under duress. The sample was never sent to a lab and insidiously declared positive
for various substances contrary to any legal, ethical or scientific method of testing urine
specimens. From a subsequent hearing on June 11th BOSCH recollected the events as such:
Then at the hearing that day, prior to the hearing, I was advised in chambers, and I cant
recollect exactly if it was the GAL or the county attorney, maybe both, that Mr. Schwabs
behavior was such in the hallway that there was concern that maybe Mr. Schwab was under the
influence of either alcohol or drugs at which time I ordered that a test be obtained from all
parents, the two fathers involved and the mother. Testing was the parties were informed of
that, I should say, the parents were informed of that by, I believe my best recollection is
maybe it was Miss Fields, whoever the county attorney was that day. Mr. Robinson then came
in chambers shortly afterwards and said that his client needed to be instructed by the judge that
it was ordered, because I hadnt signed anything in writing, so I recall going to the into the
hallway and informing Mr. Schwab that all the everyone, the two fathers and the mother,
needed to submit to a UA and/or breath test, and in reading Mr. Schwabs motion to suppress, I
think he is pretty accurate with what I informed him. He says I stated Im Judge Bosch and I
order you to give a UA and BA, and I recollect thats what I advised him of, and he went ahead
and submitted to it. (exhibit 2 of District Court motion for TRO/Court Transcript Motions
Hearing) NOTE: records are being withheld from the Plaintiff's unconstitutionally and
are unavailable to file with this brief due to that restriction.
19.

In the subsequent adjudication hearing July 10th, 2015 Judge BOSCH impeached

his former statement (that Mr Schwab's erratic behavior led to the drug testing of every parent,
by berating Mr. Schwab for being late to every hearing: Exhibit 3 Court Transcript
Adjudication hearing presented to District Court at TRO hearing). None of the defendants

Appeal Brief

present including JOHNSON, INGLES, FIELDS, VINDUSKA, JACKSON, OR BOSCH

noticed or raised objection to this contradictory testimony (that Mr Schwab's behavior in a
hallway by some unknown reporter was basis to violate the Appellant's, and other parent's
constitutional protections, by BOSCH all while continuing to insist all Appellant's, including
Mr Allison, rescind their constitutional protections or be retaliated against by various means
including restricting access to their children and/or siblings while slandering/defaming
Appellant's in court, to the family placement, the children and to the media.
20.

This infringement is still being utilized to restrict Mr and Mrs Schwab from their

children though they have through coercion, intimidation, and duress given numerous tests in
order to see their children with no positive finding of ANY illicit substance. It is the plaintiffs
assertion that any claim of a positive drug test is fraudulent and neither can any laboratory
report be produced to corroborate the Appellee's defamatory statements both on and off the
record.
21.

No reasonable suspicion was given or special circumstances required as to why

the SCHWAB'S were denied their 4th amendment protections. The DCF investigation and
results indicated no substantiation to the claims of abuse.
To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on
individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. Chandler, 520 U.S. at 313.
22.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of

the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures.
U.S.CONST amend. IV. A more recent case, LEBRON V WILKINS United States District

Appeal Brief

Court, M.D. Florida,Orlando Division. 820 F.Supp.2d 1273 (M.D. Fla. 2011), which stuck
down mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, observed:
It is well established that mandatory drug testing by the government is considered a
search under the Fourth Amendment and is subject to the Fourth Amendment s reasonableness
requirement . See Lebron, 710 F.3d at 1206 (citing Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489
U.S. 602, 617 (1989); Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 665 (1989);
Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 313 (1997); Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646
(1995); Bd. of Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie Cnty. v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822
(2002)). In Skinner, the seminal case on this issue, the Supreme Court held that the collection
and testing of urine intrudes upon expectations of privacy that society has long recognized.
22.

In the June 11th hearing where Mr Schwab pro se challenged, not only the

violations of his due process through the waving of his Temporary Custody Hearing without his
consent by ROBISNSON but also the continually violation of his right to privacy under the 4 th
amendment, BOSCH informed Mr. Schwab he had no such 4th amendment Constitutional
protections and neither could he appeal any of his rulings (Exhibit 5 of district court TRO
hearing; court record motions hearing). Defendant INGLES corrected BOSCH as to his
inaccurate and misleading statements, nevertheless BOSCH deprived Mr Schwab both of his
due process through inaccurate information when he had no counsel, denied his right to consult
with his new counsel, and threatened punitive action against the PLAINTIFF for exercising
those protections.
23.

Defendants KVC, ST FRANCIS, EISENBARGER, DCF, INGLES, FIELDS,

VINDUSKA ROBSINSON, BAKER, JACKSON, PROCE, BOYD, JOHNSON, GILMORE,

DEBENHAM BROWNBACK AND BOSCH through information and belief and by neglect,
conspiracy, policy, or action conspired to retaliate and abuse their power toward
DEFENDANT TYELER ALLISON for testifying for the SCHWAB's. This retaliation included
Appeal Brief

forcing Mr. ALLISON to be subjected to drug test in violation of his 4th amendment and
refusing to allow him access to his siblings, even through phone calls. Though repeated request
have been made to allow MR. ALLISON access to his siblings and the PLAINTIFF/appellant
has completed all the required background checks he is not allowed even visitation, and no
reason is given as to why though no allegations were ever lodged toward MR. ALLISON.
24.

The 14th and 5th amendments of the Constitution, as well as various legal rulings

guarantee the right of substantive and procedural due process defined as:
A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that
one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the
government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee
that a law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.
The appellee's in this case continue to violate any sense of due process including forcing
both the SCHWABS to represent themselves in a very complex hearing which lasted 8 hours
on October 19th 2016 and having hearings without the Schwab's present, or represented by
counsel.. This Oct hearing occurred despite Mrs. Schwab's repeated request for counsel, per the
Constitution and Kansas Statue, resulting in her not being able to handle the proceedings
emotionally and having to leave for a portion of them while BOSCH refused any continuance
or appointment of counsel. Defendant's RILEY COUNTY, DCF, BOWNBACK, GILMORE,
ST FRANCIS, BOYD, PRICE, FIELDS AND BOSCH all participated in this deprivation and
is believed, through witness testimony, to have had multiple ex parte in chambers meetings
with all counsel (excluding the pro se respondant's,) the county, and caseworker's during the
duration of the hearing. It is believed by the Plaintiff's these meetings were to coordinate the
proceedings to deprive the Schwab's of their due process which is why they were not allowed

Appeal Brief

10

into the meetings even though they were pro se.

25.

The basic requirement of constitutional due process is a fair and impartial

tribunal, whether at the hands of a court, an administrative agency or a government hearing

officer. Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 569, 93 S.Ct. 1689, 1693, 36 L.Ed.2d 488 (1973).
The Supreme Court has consistently enforced this basic procedural right and held that decision
makers are constitutionally unacceptable in the following circumstances: (1) where the
decision maker has a direct personal, substantial, and pecuniary interest in the outcome of the
case; (2) where an adjudicator has been the target of personal abuse or criticism from the party
before him; and (3) when a judicial or quasi-judicial decision maker has the dual role of
investigating and adjudicating disputes and complaints. See Baran v. Port of Beaumont
Navigation Dist. of Jefferson County, 57 F.3d 436, 444-46 (5th Cir.1995). The Appellee's all
have a stake in the outcome of the State case being against the Schwab's due to the pending
Federal Litigation. All parties have been subject to criticism by the Plaintiff's/Appellant's in the
media as well. The parties involved in case management are the same parties the Appellant's
are forced to file complaints through for investigation.
26.

Judge Bosch has refused all motions to recuse himself despite this current Federal

litigation, and petitions being filed by the Plaintiff's in conjunction of private citizens to
convene a Grand Jury to investigate BOSCH. The Continuance for the October 2016 hearing
was finally granted after 8 hours and the new date was set for the day the Plaintiff's had
publicly announced to the media they would be in Sedwick County Kansas on election day
gathering signatures for the petition to convene the Grand Jury. This act seems to be intentional
and another display of BOSCH's inability to remain judicially impartial/neutral and the
Appeal Brief

11

outcome of the State case clearly influences this pending Federal litigation and therefore
BOSCH should not even be presiding over the case. He has already, contrary to Kansas Statue
refused multiple motions to recuse, without allowing another judge to hear the recusal
affidavidt per Kansas Statue. Many of the other parties are directly involved where causing the
Schwab's to fail at reintegration of the children would benefit them in any further litigation or
complaint against the appellee's.
27.

This right also extends to adequate representation, rights to discovery and

evidence being presented in a court of law, and a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal.
City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 119 S. Ct. 1849, 144 L. Ed. 2D 67 (1999); Lee v.
Kemna, 534 U.S. 362, 122 S. Ct. 877, 151 L. Ed. 820 [2002]).; GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT, 372 U.S.
335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2D 799 (1963) . Appellant's have been and are currently being
denied these rights.
28.

DEFENDANT'S/APPELEE'S of the 1983 Civil Action have conspired, based

on information and belief, either through policy, action, negligence or complicity to deprive the
PLANTIFF'S/APPELLANTS of their due process rights procedural, constitutionally, legally
and statutorily and it is hereby so egregious as to merit the statement that no attempt to grant
the plaintiffs due process in any action. The APPELLANTS believe the level of conspiracy and
action to be so blatant even those with a remedial constitutional education could determine
their actions to be as such.
29.

DEFENDENTS VINDUSKA, DEBENHAM, INGLES, JOHNSON,

ROBINSON refused to place exculpatory evidence on the record, give adequate representation,
lied to the APPELLANT'S, refused to file motions on the APPELLANT'S behalf and constantly
Appeal Brief

12

worked as advocates of the state threatening the SCHWAB'S if they did not comply with the
unconstitutional demands they would lose their children forever, and refused to advocate for
the APPELAANT'S right's, pursue legal remedies, and grant adequate representation as
provided by the Constitution further hindering the APPEALANT'S due process and facilitating
the retaliation upon Mr. Allison.
30.

Defendants BOSCH, GILMORE, BROWNBACK, KVC, FREED, DCF, ST

FRANCIS, EISENBARGER, VINDUSKA, ROBINSON, PATHWAYS, PAWNEE,

WILKERSON, BAKER, JOHNSON, JACKSON, POSSEN, BOYD, PRICE, FIELDS,
INGLES, DEBENHAM, CASA, RILEY COUNTY AND PATHWAYS conspired to deprive
the APPELLANT'S of their right to due process by colluding in secret meetings, without
notification to the APPELLANT'S and conducting hearings without giving the SCHWAB'S
proper notice or right to representation. Recently Mrs. SCHWAB had been notified by
JOHNSON that BOSCH relieved JOHNSON as MRS SCHWAB's attorney and would not be
appointing any other representation. Mrs. SCHWAB was notified she would now be forced to
represent herself and further hearings and proceedings were conducted without any
representation whatsoever.
31.

Prior to the Permanency hearing in April of 2016 BOSCH denied Mr. Schwab's

request for counsel, defendants JOHNSON, FILEDS and INGLES motions for continuance and
stated to Mr. Schwab, who shared due to the complexity of the hearing he did not feel
competent to represent himself that he chose to represent himself and the hearing would go on .
It has recently come to Mr. Schwab's attention that another hearing may have occurred without
notification to the Appellant's where Mr. Schwab's Standby Counsel Defendant
Appeal Brief

13

DEBENHAM was allowed to quit. Neither was Mr. Schwab's Standby Counsel allowed to
take over the hearing in April 2016, but was allowed to conduct a secret hearing without Mr.
SCHWAB being present where he advised MR. SCHWAB he could not release any information
to him about the hearing due to BOSCH's order to not release information to the
APPELLANT'S.
32.

In said hearing it was stated on the record by multiple parties that certain

documents were leaked by the SCHWAB'S to a media organization KSNT. This accusation was
made without the SCHWAB'S present, granted adequate and competent representation, or in
the case of MRS. SCHWAB there was no representation due to BOSCH refusing to appoint
such representation and denying the continuances placed by both SCHWAB'S. Defendant
DEBENHAM implied in a subsequent email to Mr SCHWAB that the court may prosecute the
SCHWAB'S and it was time for MR SCHWAB to start complying rather than defending MR
SCHWAB's due process rights as his stand by counsel. (exhibit 6 of district court TRO
hearing). In documents released through the District Court Pleadings there is a disparity in
transcripts and evidence that a transcript was altered to minimize damaging statements made by
Bethany Fields concerning the seizure of the Schwab children because they were moving to
receive care via Medical Cannabis. The petition for taking the children was altered to change
the courts responsibility under the ICWA, which they ignored for almost 9 months even though
the petition stated the children may be of native American Descent.
33.

It is the APPELANT'S belief that these false allegations are being leveled as the

APPELLEE'S are preparing to retaliate against the APPELANT'S by lodging these false
allegations to engage the SCHWABS in criminal proceedings, or contempt of court charges in
Appeal Brief

14

order to hinder the SCHWABS protest and litigation. The SCHWAB'S did not provide
documents to KSNT or any party to be release to said agency. These accusations are meant to
harass, intimidate and entangle the APPELLANT'S in more litigation for the purpose of
depriving them of their right to publicly protest these encroachments upon their rights and
subject the APPELANT'S to abuse of power and retaliation that they would be silenced. MR.
Schwab, during a hunger strike on the Kansas Capitol was arrested after his 11 th day of strike
for an alleged warrant, incarcerated in the Shawnee County Jail, stripped naked and stuck in a
cold cell with some other persons blood and urine, and threatened to be placed in a psych ward
if he did not eat. After 24 hours and a bond which had been raised from 100.00 to 5000.00 Mr
Schwab was thrust out of jail on his own recognizance with the end result of being given a
loitering ticket. It is believed, through information and belief that these events were instigated
by Sam Brownback ,and other agents within the State Capitol, to silence Mr. Schwab's
constitutionally protected protest. It is for this reason the SCHWAB's fear further retaliation.
34.

Furthermore all APPELLEE'S of the 1983 Civil Complaint have been

engaged in or participating with conspiratorial activities by refusing to give the SCHWAB'S

any records, reports, evidence or court record even though they are legally entitled to under due
process. In order to view the court file the SCHWAB's have to drive 600 miles and enter into
the Riley County Attorneys office, under escort by the RCPD to view the documents but cannot
make any record or copy. This clear attempt to intimidate and hinder the SCHWAB's due
process was evidenced when such an appointment as scheduled in MARCH 2016.
WILKERSON refused to give MR SCHWAB all the documents as did defendant RILEY
COUNTY. When WILKERSON and FILEDS were confronted by the lack of documents
Appeal Brief

15

requested and required under law to be available to Mr SCHWAB WILKERSON replied with
threats and intimidation telling Mr Schwab he knew him as a child and was sorry how Mr
SCHWAB's life turned out, screamed in front of witnesses for MR SCHWAB to Shut his
Damn mouth and declared that the APPELLANT'S Would never get his file.
35.

Appellee's RCPD refused to investigate the criminal activity surrounding the

unlawful seizure of the Schwab children. The Appellant's were informed by the RCPD they
will not investigate, neither will they release any documentation to the Appellant's concerning
the case thereby depriving the Plaintiff's right to look at the evidence used against them and the
RCPD's negligence to investigate the kidnapping of the children. Appellee VINDUSKA did
release copy of the report to MR SCHWAB but the file was incomplete. RCPD refuses to
communicate with the Appellant's.
36.

RILEY COUNTY and its commissioners office refused to take a complaint from

Mr. SCHWAB concerning the deprivation of his civil liberties. On multiple occasions,
including a face to face meeting with the Riley County Attorney in march of 2016, Mr
SCHWAB was lied to by the attorney where could file a complaint against the RCPD and
where to serve his lawsuit against the county. The unnamed County Attorney informed Mr.
Schwab I am not in the business of helping the County be sued and will be doe number 1.
This led to the dismissal of RILEY COUNTY as a defendant in the current lawsuit due to
improper service ,which the Appellant's will swiftly remedy, but was a clear attempt at
furthering the denial of the Appellant's due process.
37.

Many of the parties named in this complaint are still currently managing or

participating in the civil proceedings. Attempts to find administrative remedies for the ongoing
Appeal Brief

16

fraud and abuse have proved futile as the defendants route all complaints back to themselves,
refuse to respond to any of the Appellant's and have conspiratorial court proceedings and
meeting's without granting any information or documents concerning those proceedings and
what is occurring save declaring on the record the SCHWAB's are not complying with the
Court and telling others outside the Court proceedings they will terminate the Parental Rights
of Raymond and Amelia Schwab while denying any access to Tyeler Allison in retaliation for
his exculpatory testimony.
38.

It is for the above circumstances, and many more which have occurred and are

continuing to occur that the Appellant's have filed a Civil Complaint under USC 1983 and 1985
with subsequent motion for a Temporary Restraining order and Preliminary Injunctions.
Parent's have a constitutional right to raise their children without government interference and
if the government does interfere due process should be afforded to those who are being
deprived of their children. If the Defendant's in the District Count action are not stopped they
will make good on their threats to permanently terminate the Schwab's parental right's and
authority without ANY due process of law contrary to the 14th amendment. As expressed in a
recent 9th Circuit ruling,
Parents and children have a well-elaborated constitutional right to live together
without governmental interference. Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1136 (9th Cir.2000).
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that parents will not be separated from their
children without due process of law except in emergencies. Mabe v. SanBernardino
Cnty., Dept. of Pub. Soc. Serv.s, 237 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2001).Officials violate this
right if they remove a child from the home absent information at the time of the seizure
that establishes reasonable cause to believe that the child is in imminent danger of serious
bodily injury and that the scope of the intrusion is reasonably necessary to avert that
specific injury. Rogers v. Cnty. of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288, 1294 (9th Cir. 2007)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).The Fourth Amendment also protects
Appeal Brief

17

children from removal from their homes absent such a showing. Rogers, 487 F.3d at 1294
(citing Dow v. Lebbos, 348 F.3d 820,827 n.9 (9th Cir. 2003)). Officials, including social
workers, who remove a child from its home without a warrant must have reasonable
cause to believe that the child is likely to experience serious bodily harm in the time that
would be required to obtain a warrant. Id. (citing Mabe, 237 F.3d at 1108). [T]he same
legal standard applies in evaluating Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims for the
removal of children.Wallis, 202 F.3d at p.1137 n. 8.
Swartwood et al v. County of San Diego et al, No. 3:2012cv01665
Statement of Issues
a.) The District Court Erred when it ruled it had no jurisdiction to enjoin state
proceedings due to constitutional and Civil rights violations due to the Younger
Abstention while not allowing the Plaintiff's to introduce witnesses or exhibits for the
record.
39.

In this appeal, Appellant's challenges the district courts denial of its motion for

preliminary injunction. We review the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of

discretion. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1128 (10th Cir. 2013), affd
sub nom Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014). A district court abuses
its discretion by denying a preliminary injunction based on an error of law. Id. To the extent
the district court made factual findings as part of its ruling, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(2), we
review those factual findings under the deferential clear error standard, Glossip v. Gross,
135 S. Ct. 2726, 2739 (2015); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
65(a) authorizes district courts to issue preliminary injunctions. A plaintiff seeking a
preliminary injunction must establish that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits, that [it] is
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities

Appeal Brief

18

tips in [its] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
Likelihood of success on the merits
40.

The very purpose of an injunction under Rule 65(a) is to give temporary relief

based on a preliminary estimate of the strength of the plaintiffs suit, prior to the resolution at
trial of the factual disputes and difficulties presented by the case. 11A Charles Alan Wright,
Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal 13 Practice and Procedure, 2948.3, at 213-14
(2013). Although [t]he courts use a bewildering variety of formulations of the need for
showing some likelihood of success, id. at 197, [a]ll courts agree that plaintiff must present a
prima facie case but need not show a certainty of winning, id. At 201.
41.

Appellant's had introduced a witness list of multiple parties to demonstrate this

pattern of seizing children based on manufactured evidence and denial of due process is a
Statewide policy of DCF, GILMORE, BROWNBACK and Kansas Family Courts working in
conjunction for what the Appellants believe is an elaborate Kids for Cash scheme targeting
Federal Incentives under title IV of the Social Security Act through fraud. Prior to the hearing
Hon. Judge Crabtree and the Federal Court denied Appellant Tyeler Schwab access to the
courtroom because he had no identification. When Mr. Schwab informed the court of the
problem the bailiff stated It would not be resolved today and the judge went forward with the
hearing without letting Mr. Allison testify or participate in the proceedings.
42.

Judge Crabtree also began the hearing by advising Mr. Schwab that before he was

going to be allowed to present any witnesses for testimony he had to convince the Judge of

Appeal Brief

19

why he should not abstain based on the Younger Abstention. After Mr. Schwab testified to the
Court and answered a series of questions for the Judge, the judge then let the Defendant's
testify, Mrs. Schwab make a statement, asked Mr. Schwab exactly what he was asking the
Court to do and then ruled without allowing the Plaintiff's exhibits to be presented to the Court
or witnesses to testify. While the Plaintiff's understood they did not need to convince the Court
of the winability of their case, due to the complexities, number of defendant's, jurisdictional
issues, and claims the Plaintiff's felt it was essential to demonstrate the statewide pattern of
Constitutional and Due process violations. Furthermore abuses of power, use of threats and
manipulation of the legal process, use of manufactured evidence, failure to provide adequate
counsel is a consistent practice of Kansas officials and Kansas Family Court Systems and these
facts were to be presented in order to overcome both the Younger Abstention and Domestic
Clause.
43.

Despite the Defendant's in the Civil Action consistently attempting to make the

proceedings about the findings of the State Court, the Appellant's made it clear the purpose of
the USC 1983,1985 actions was for relief based on the Constitutional and Due process
violations with joint action and conspiring between all defendants to deprive the Schwab's and
Mr. Allison of their Civil Rights.
44.

For instance, in the pleadings by the State of Kansas Defendant's concerning the

injunctions they pointed to their interpretation of the Kansas Court of Appeals ruling that Mr.
Schwab had no fourth amendment protections in Child in Need of Care Proceedings and that
issue was already settled on the State level and no relief could be granted. However the issue
which was reviewed by the Kansas Court of Appeals was if a faulty drug test that was not
Appeal Brief

20

verified in a lab could be utilized as justification for adjudicating the Children. The Plaintiff's
contention in the Federal Civil Action was that for 18 months the Schwab's have been subjected
to intrusive drug testing, restricted from their children for protesting the violation , and were
seeking for the Court to stop this infringement upon their 4th amendment. The appellee's even
admitted JOHNSON'S malpractice to the Federal Court and record that Mrs. Schwab had no
appeals filed, which Mrs. Schwab testified was due to her attorney refusing to file them hence
the reason for her being named in the lawsuit. Nevertheless the Judge sided with the
Defendant's without clarifying the issue, and agreeing that individuals had no 4th amendment
protections in CINC proceedings contrary to every Supreme Court ruling to date concerning
drug testing.
45.

Mr. Schwab, in his testimony on the record in the preliminary injunction hearing,

withdrew the request to the Federal District Judge of recusing the State Proceeding's judge and
forcing a jurisdiction change as being outside the scope of a 1983 action and demonstrated how
the State proceedings were initiated by the unlawful seizure, and perpetuated by a bad
faith/malicious prosecution which is the reason the Younger Abstention did not apply.

`ch

rights are "virtually self evident." Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1075 (9th Cir. 2001).
Rather, the Plaintiff enjoys a due process right to be free from deception in the presentation of
evidence in the juvenile court, i.e. false or perjured testimony and/or the deliberate suppression
of exculpatory evidence. Greene v. Camreta, 588 F.3d 1011, 1035 (9th Cir. Or. 2009), vacated
on other grounds by Camreta v. Greene, 131 S. Ct. 2020, 2036 nil (2011); see also Costanich v.
Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. 627 F.3d 1101, 1108 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Toler v. Paulson,
551 F. Supp.2d 1039, 1043 and 1047 (E.D. Cal. 2008). [A] constitutional right may be clearly
Appeal Brief

21

established by common sense. (DeBoer v. Pennington 206 F.3d 857, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2000),
vacated on other grounds by Bellingham v. DeBoer 532 U.S. 992 (2001).) This occurs where
conduct is so patently violative of the constitutional right that reasonable officials would know
without guidance from the courts that the action was unconstitutional.(James v. Rowlands 606
F.3d 646, 652 (9th Cir. 2010).) The undeniable maxim to tell the truth is so deeply ingrained
in the charter of the United State's existence that any reasonable oath-beholden government
agent including social workers would know without guidance from the courts that the use
of false or perjured evidence to deprive an individual of their protected liberty interests is never
justified. (See e.g., N. Mariana Islands v. Bowie, 243 F.3d 1109, 1124 (9th Cir. Haw. 2001); see
also, Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070,1084 (9th Cir. Wash. 2001) (Kleinfeld, A.,
concurring); [T]hese rules of constitutional law apply not only to police, but also to the social
workers, and to others who act on behalf of the state. Anyone who acts on behalf of the
government should know that a person has a constitutional right not to be framed.].)

46.

Judge Crabtree ignored these arguments and evidence presented which could

overcome Younger and Domestic Clause Abstentions, refused to allow testimony or the
Plaintiff's exhibits and then admitted on the record that the Plaintiff's demonstrated a strong
showing of malicious/bad faith prosecution which is one of the three requirement's (Only one
being needed to overcome a Younger Abstention) to NOT abstain based on the Younger
Doctrine.

Furthermore, as stated above, the Appellant's warned Judge Crabtree that if the

District Court did not intervene the Appellee's would continue their constitutional and due
process violations until the Schwab's parental rights were terminated without due process. The
Appeal Brief

22

defendant's/Appellee's validated this assertion on Oct 19, 2016 a permanency hearing was held
in Riley County. This was a very complex hearing where the State was attempting to initiate
termination proceedings against Raymond and Amelia Schwab. BOSCH again refused Amelia
Schwab her right to representation and forced her to represent herself, to which FILEDS, DCF,
BROWNNBACK, GILMORE, ST FRANCIS, PRICE, BOYD and RILEY COUNTY through
its agents, assented to.
47.

This occurred despite Mrs Schwab notifying the Court that her former Counsel,

defendant JOHNSON, advised her the Court would no longer be granting her an attorney in an
email April 28 of 2016 and so she believed she was ineligible for an attorney due to
JOHNSONS misinformation. All the above listed defendant's responded to the request with the
same statement You had six months to get an attorney and now you can represent yourself.
48.

It is because of these few facts alone, not to mention the many other examples of

due process and constitutional violations, that the Appellants believe they demonstrated the
merits of their claims and have a likelihood of success on the merits as it is a foundational
constitutional protection to have adequate representation and granted due process in the
interference of parental custody by the State of Kansas, or any state. These are fact's that
anyone involved in these proceedings should know, without dispute, as they have all take oaths
to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Irreparable Harm
49.

The 9thCircuit declared inWallisv.Spencer,202 F.3d. 1126(9thCir. 2000), that[b]ecause the

swing of every pendulum brings with it potential adverse consequences, it is important to emphasize that in the
area of child abuse, as with the investigation and prosecution of all crimes, the state is constrained by the
Appeal Brief

23

substantive and procedural guarantees of the Constitution. The fact that the suspected crime may be heinous
whether it involves children or adults does not provide cause for the state to ignore the rights of the accused or
any other parties. Otherwise, serious injustices may result. In cases of alleged child abuse, governmental failure
to abide by constitutional constraints may have deleterious long-term consequences for the child and, indeed,
for the entire family. Ill-considered and improper governmental action may create significant injury (Id. At
1130-1131).
50.

The parent's of these children were accused of emotional abuse. Those allegations were

declared unsubstantiated by DCF. Since being in State Custody the children have been subjected to the denial
of their faith, culture, and subjected to physical and sexual abuse. Irreparable harm is already occurring to this
family structure due to the egregious fraud and violations of due process and rights while the defendant's
commit perjury and use manufactured evidence to continue the farce.
51.

There is no question that Plaintiffs suffer irreparable harm every day that Plaintiffs

children/siblings are used for exploitative, fraudulent purposes, under Title IV of the Social Security Act, while
denying the parents due process and retaliating against exculpatory witnesses and the exercise of their
constitutional rights and protections. Deprivation of constitutional rights for even minimal periods of time,
unquestionably constitutes irreparable harm. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S.347, 373 (1976); see also Awad, 670
F.3d at 1131 (Furthermore, when an alleged constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further
showing of irreparable injury is necessary.)(citation omitted); Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 241 F.3d 800, 809 (6th Cir.
2001) ([W]hen reviewing a motion for preliminary injunction, if it is found that a constitutional right is being
threatened or impaired, a finding of irreparable injury is mandated.); Quinly v. City of Prairie Village, 446
F.Supp.2d 1233, 1237-38 (D. Kan. 2006) (same).
52. Furthermore it is asserted that potential irreparable harm has already occurred due to
Appeal Brief

24

the sexual assault of E.S., force medicating and institutionalization of C.S. Whereas he was
assaulted and stated on video he was in a living hell, and the forcing of D.B. to conform to the
false narrative they have constructed as well as depriving all children of their religious faith and
belief. The damage to the parent child/sibling bond, as multiple defendants continue to lie to
the children is incalculable at this time and each day the Appellant's are denied due process,
subjected to constitutional violations upon their person, deprived of their civil liberties,
harassed, and retaliated against by the Defendants the level of harm and damage only increases.
53.

The disconnect the appellee's have, concerning these offenses and their

unconstitutionality, was demonstrated in the Permanency Hearing held in April of 2016 where
BOSCH stated in closing remarks callously after learning of the sexual, emotional, and
physical abuse of the SCHWAB children while in DCF custody that the children Were better
off then they have ever been with the parents causing an emotional outburst from Mr
SCHWAB and continued despair that his children could even die in DCF custody as Kansas
and DCF have recently settled such a lawsuit where a child was beat to death in their care. It is
not believed that the SCHWAB children would even be in DCF custody if appropriate law and
due process had been followed, and will remain there if this Court does not enjoin them to
assure they grant these rights and protections.
54.

Further evidence is in the recently released DCF Audit conducted by the Kansas

Legislature which has stated the inability of the DEFENDANTS/APPALEE'S to keep the
SCHWAB children safe. The results of this audit has moved legislators to call for the
resignation of GILMORE, who patently dismissed the finding's stating Kansas DCF is the
Safest in the nation while settling a case of a child murdered in her agencies care. Defendant
Appeal Brief

25

ST FRANCIS has recently been sued as well concerning one of their case managers allegedly
attempting to trade sexual favors for returning children. It is clear their system is unsafe, and
clearly out of touch with the reality of their negligence and constitutionally abhorrent behavior
thereby it is asserted, through information, evidence and belief that the longer the Plaintiff's due
process is denied, and the longer their children remain in DCF custody due to that deprivation,
the greater likelihood of even greater irreparable harm than has already occurred such as death.
55.

With the passage of each day, these harms accumulate. The United States and

Kansas Supreme Court's have long recognized that the right to due process and the rights of
parents to raise their children according to their conscience without government interference
are fundamental liberty issues. Specifically stated;
"A parent's right to make decisions regarding the care, custody, and control of his
or her child is
a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65-66, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49, 120 S. Ct. 2054
(2000); Sheppard v. Sheppard, 230 Kan. 146,
152, 630 P.2d 1121 (1981), cert. denied
455 U.S. 919, 102 S. Ct. 1274, 71 L. Ed. 2d 459 (1982).
That right, however, is not
absolute. The welfare of children is a matter of State concern. Sheppard, 230 Kan. 146,
630 P.2d 1121, Syl. P 2. Before a parent can be deprived of her right to
the custody,
care, and control of her child, he or she is entitled to due process of law. 230 Kan. at
152-54. 205 (1888)).
56.

The harms to Plaintiffs dignity that result from being deprived of this most

important relation should be considered particularly irreparable because they cannot be

adequately compensated for in the form of monetary damages. See Awad, 670 F.3d at 1131;
Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians v. Pierce, 253 F.3d 1234, 1251 (10th Cir. 2001). To
continue to deny Plaintiffs the enjoyment and benefits of one of the most important liberties in life, such as
the parents and children's rights to enjoy each other and be guided in their care and upbringing by denying due
process and false allegations is to continue to irreparably harm them.
Appeal Brief

26

The Harm To Plaintiffs Substantially Outweighs Any Harm To The Defendants.

57.

Appellee/Defendant's have yet to express how forcing them to obey the

Constitution, Follow the Policies and procedures of DCF and the Kansas Plan for Title IV
funding, Follow the contracted responsibility to obey these policies and procedures if they are a
contracted agent of the state such as St Francis, and obey the laws and statues which govern
Child In Need of Care proceedings would constitute harm to them at all.
58.

The Appellee's acknowledged in the Sept 8th hearing that to enjoin them to do the

above activities would be redundant, as they are required to follow them anyways. The
Appellant's agree, but as they have demonstrated NO AMOUNT of due process and procedural
protections are being followed by the appellee's and they have made it very clear the
Appellant's rights will not be protected and the Appellee's are making good on their threat that
the Appellant's will never see their children/siblings again by these violations of rights and due
process, which require a higher court to step in.
Injunctive Relief Is In The Public Interest.
59.

[I]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a partys

constitutional rights. Hobby Lobby, 723 F.3d at 1145 (quoting Awad, 670 F.3d at 1131-32).
While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out . . . the public has a
more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individuals constitutional rights. Awad,
670 F.3d at 1132. Accordingly, the relief requested serves the interest of the Plaintiffs, the
Defendants and other district court clerks, and the People of Kansas. It is once again stated that
deprivation of constitutional rights for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably
constitutes irreparable harm. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S.347, 373 (1976); see also Awad, 670
Appeal Brief

27

F.3d at 1131. If this is harm to an individual it would also rightly be applied to the public
whereas if any other member of the public were subject to such deprivations it would constitute
harm. Since it is a fact that these Juvenile Court proceedings are cloaked in secrecy, to allow
them unchecked power to systematically deprive citizens of their right to due process is
harmful to the public welfare and should be a concern of every citizen. Secret Courts, Unlawful
Deprivations, Lack of Due Process, Interference with the prosperity and happiness of the
citizens by unchecked, and arbitrary displays of power was the exact type of actions the Bill of
Rights and Constitution were written and enacted to curtail.
The Federal Court's declaration that to enjoin the State Proceeding's because its too
messy and too much work, which is why its not in the public's best interest, is a fallacious
argument stating citizens cannot get relief under USC 1983 and 1985 if the court determines its
too much work to enjoin State Defendant's to obey the law. The ruling, in essence, undermines
USC 1983, 1985 actions which was developed to provide relief for constitutional violations
within State and Local proceedings where those rights and protections are being denied. To
state that the Appellant's must wait until their family is utterly destroyed and children ruined to
be granted relief from a Federal Court should strike terror into the heart of any citizen who is
being subjected to a State DCF investigation as they will be given no hope that justice and
relief can be acquired. For the reasons outlined above, the Appellant's conclude they have
satisfied each of the four requirements for issuance of a preliminary injunction and that the
district court abused its discretion in concluding otherwise.
Conclusion
It is for the above reasons the Appellant's seek relief from this Court. We request this
Appeal Brief

28

court to overturn the determination not to place injunctions on the appellee's as they have
already demonstrated between the hearing and this brief that they have no intention of granting
Due Process of Law to the Schwab's and Mr. Allison while they systematically, abusively, and
unconstitutionally rip this family apart.
Appellant's also seek Oral Arguments as there are many other facts not contained in this
brief that may grant further clarification of these deprivations, as well as the daily occurrences
of abuse of power, altering documents, depriving of civil liberties, and evisceration of
Constitutional protections which may accumulate more before the Appellant's can be heard by
this Court.

Signed this 27th day of October 2016

/S/________________________
RAYMOND SCHWAB
In propria persona
/S/________________________
AMELIA SCHWAB
In propria persona
/S/________________________
TYELER ALLISON
In propria persona

Appeal Brief

29

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on OCT 27th, 2016, I filed VIA fedex with the clerk of
court through mail, and have sent notice of electronic filing to the following through the clerk of court,
and by email.

Corliss Scroggins Lawson esq.

Dept Children of Children and Families
555 S. Kansas Ave., 6th Floor
Topeka, KS 66603
Tel: 785-296-3967
ATTORNEY FOR KANSAS DCF AND PHYLLIS GILMORE
Christopher A. Brackman, Esq.
John G. Shultz, Esq.
FRANKIE, SHULTZ AND MULLEN
7101 College BLVD., ste. 510
Overland Park KS 66210
cbrackman@fsmlawfirm.com
jschultz@fsmlawfirm.com
ATTORNEY FOR ST FRANCIS COMMUUNITY SERVICES AND KATHY BOYD
Timothy J. Finnerty Esq.
Jason Janoski ESQ.
WALLENCE, SAUNDERS, AUSTIN BROWN &ENOCH'S Chtd.
400 O.W. Garvey Center
200 W Douglas
Witchita, KS 67202
Tel: 316-269-2100
Fax: 316-269-2479
tfinnerty@wallacesauders.com
jjanoski@wallacesaunders.com
ATTORNEY FOR ANDY VINDUSKA
Stephen O. Phillips, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General
120 S.W. 10th Ave., 2nd Floor
Topeka, KS 66612
Tel: 785-368-8421
Fax: 785-296-6296
Appeal Brief

30

steve.phillips@ag.gov.ks.gov
ATTORNEY FOR JOHN BOSCH
David R. Cooper, Esq.
Seth Aaron Lowry, Esq.
FISHER, PATTERSON, SAYLER, & SMITH LLP
3550 SW Fifth Street
Topeka, KS 66603
Tel: 785-232-7761
Fax: 785-232-7761
dcooper@fisherpatterson.com
slowry@fisherpatterson.com
ATTORNEY'S FOR SAM BROWNBACK, STATE OF KANSAS, PATHWAYS FAMILY SERVICES
LLC., RILEY COUNTY POLICE DEPT., AND BARRY WILKERSON
J. Steven Pigg, Esq.
FISHER, PATTERSON, & SMITH, LLP
3350 SW Fifth St.
Topeka, KS 66603
TEL: 785-286-6632
FAX: 785-232-6604
spigg@fisherpatterson.com
ATTORNEY FOR BLAKE ROBINSON.
Mimi Doherty
920 Main St, Suite 1900
Kansas City, MO 64105
Tel: 816-421-4000
Fax: 816-421-7880
med@deacylaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT LORA INGLES
Michael C. Kirkham
Tracy M. Hayes
SANDERS, WARREN & RUSSELL LLP
40 Corporate Woods
9401 Indian Creek Parkway, Suite 1250
Overland Park, KS 66210
PH: 913-234-6100
FX: 913-234-6199
m.kirkham@swrllp.com
t.hayes@swrllp.com
ATTORNEYS FOR RILEY COUNTY KS.

Appeal Brief

31

Appeal Brief

32