MAKE ALL LIVES MATTER / LIEN THE POLICE

SWORN AFFIDAVIT
CRIMINAL CAUSE AND COMPLAINT

Date: September 13, 2010

Via Hand Delivery and Certified Mail # 7008 1830 0002 6842 2706
Memphis Police Internal Affairs Bureau
cc.
CITY of MEMPHIS MAYOR, AC Wharton,

Page 1 of 7
Memphis Police Commissioner Larry Godwin,
U.S. State Department, Reta Jo Lewis. U.S. Special Representative for Global Intergovernmental Affairs

Affiant, Claimant contact number for additional information: (901) 265-0347

I, VICTIM, Choctaw Citizen :Kiki Onay:, one of the aboriginal people of Choctaw, inhabitant of Louisiana
Territory, Postal area 71220, an indigenous Iroquois / Washitaw National, herein state and declare for the
record the following:

I declare and enter with full knowledge that probable cause exists establishing belief that Memphis Police
officers listed below committed one or more criminal offenses and United States Constitutional violations
against :Kiki Onay: in Shelby County, Tennessee.

The facts supporting this belief are as follows:

1. At approximately 5:30 P.M., on July 5, 2010, Affiant received a phone call from fellow indigenous
citizen, :Bobby Kukuli: expressing he was being stopped by a Memphis Police officer near Raines
and Weaver for reasons unknown to him and he asked if Affiant and her husband would come and
film the traffic stop. When Affiant and other missionaries arrived at traffic stop, MPD Lieutenant
Timothy Rush Badge #908 and IBM #7368 was also arriving.

2. After parking, Affiant, and two other indigenous citizens, immediately began filming as Affiant’s
husband began crossing the street to provide information helpful in identifying :Bobby Kukuli:’s
status as a indigenous citizen, and halfway across the street Lt. Rush yelled “you need to get out of
the street so you don’t block traffic; Affiant and Affiant’s husband walked back to the sidewalk.

3. Approximately five minutes later whils filming continued, Affiant’s husband again tried to approach
officers to show documents pertaining to the non-U.S. status of :seymond-raggs: and again Lt. Rush
told Affiant’s husband to get back on the sidewalk and don’t interrupt them again or he would be
arrested.

4. At this, Affiant began walking away from the incident area down the street approximately 35 yards
away from officers, and when no traffic was in the area, Affiant began crossing the street while
filming, and Lt. Rush directed Officer Woods Badge # 5054 IBM # 11833 to arrest Affiant.

5. Affiant’s husband began warning officers that Affiant was not a U.S. Citizen and had not violated any
laws, and kept warning that no probable cause existed for the officer’s actions, as Affiant’s husband
walked out into the street to retrieve Affiant’s camera and keys from Affiant, as Officer Woods began
handcuffing Affiant. Within moments of being handcuffed, Affiant began to have abdominal pains

Page 2 of 7
 and advised officers that Affiant was pregnant with child, and officers continued in placing Affiant in
the back of police car.

6. After placing Affiant into back of car, Officer Woods went back and continued talking to :Bobby
Kukuli: as other officers began to arrive. Fifteen minutes later officers gave :Bobby Kukuli: a citation
for allegedly running a stop sign. Officers then waited another forty-five minutes talking with MPD
supervisor Major Joe Oakley Badge #0619 IBM # 6493, and MPD supervisor, Lieutenant Colonel
Milton Jones Badge #0504 IBM # 4300, both of whom refused to speak with Affiant and refused to
accept information from Affiant’s husband [all documented on film] giving officers an option and
opportunity to contact Choctaw government official, Commissioner Modupe’, which would have
resolved all issues properly, respectfully and diplomatically.

7. Affiant was held in handcuffs in the back of police car for more than an hour and a half before
officers decide to transport non-violent, non-threatening Affiant to hospital after notice of medical
condition. Upon arriving at hospital, officers did not know what offense Affiant had committed, nor
did they know the charges, and at all times Affiant advised officers of Affiants lawful status,
constitutional standing, international human rights and treaty protections, which were ignored by all
officers.

8. While having no official complaint, charges, warrant, nor indictment, MPD officers violated 4th
Amendment protections, and this including Officer Tonia Cope Badge # 5018 and IBM # 11770 who
is responsible for spraining two of Affiant’s fingers. While Affiant lay cuffed to a hospital bed
awaiting treatment from doctors, Officer Cope came to stand guard over Affiant, and while on that
duty Officer Cope demanded to take Affiant’s finger prints and Affiant demanded to know what the
charge was and demanded to speak with a Magistrate, at which time Officer Cope grabbed Affiant’s
hand and used excessive force to secure Affiant’s finger prints, and in using excessive force, Officer
Cope injured Affiant’s hand, which was examined and x-rayed by doctors a short while later; their
findings concluded a sprained thumb and pinkie finger.

9. It is Affiant’s presumption that Officer Cope’s conduct violated the "clear and obvious principle that
once an arrest has been fully secured and any potential danger or risk of flight vitiated," a police
officer cannot employ "severe and unnecessary force." Lee, 284 F.3d at 1200. Where a principle is
"clear and obvious," officer Cope cannot argue that she had no warning that her conduct was
verboten, therefore it is not likely there will be any entitlement to qualified immunity, and it would be
appreciated if your investigation of Officer Cope included a psychological examination and racial
diversity training due to her vehement hostility towards Affiant.

10. Excessive Force; Affiant also states that while Affiant had not been formally charged, and was lying
cuffed to a hospital bed, incapable of going anywhere, Affiant demonstrated no level of urgency and
necessity to have excessive force used upon Affiant in acquiring Affiant’s finger prints, which

Page 3 of 7
 actually belongs to Affiant according to Davis vs. Mississippi; a case precedent warning given to
officer Cope and ignored by her. The assault against Affiant lying pregnant in a hospital bed was
clearly a personal action, a colorable action in violation of constitutional protections and rights.

11. It is Affiant’s understanding that, "in order to determine whether the amount of force used by a police
officer was proper, a determination must be made asking 'whether a reasonable officer would believe
that this level of force to get Affiant’s finger prints was necessary in the situation at hand.'" Lee, 284
F.3d at 1197 (quoting Willingham v. Loughnan, 261 F.3d 1178, 1186 (11th Cir. 2001)). The Eleventh
Circuit has explained and the Supreme Court has established that, in order to balance the necessity of
using some force attendant to an arrest against the arrestee's constitutional rights, evaluation of a
number of factors must be considered, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the
suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he/she is
actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Lee, 284 F.3d at 1198 (citing Graham
v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394-95, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443, 109 S. Ct. 1865 (1989) and Leslie v. Ingram,
786 F.2d 1533, 1536 (11th Cir. 1986)).

12. Affiant requests investigation of these criminal acts committed against Affiant, mainly the claims
based on: (1) violations of Affiants right of protection under Fourth Amendment rights to be free
from an unreasonable arrest and excessive force; (2) state law assault; (3) state law battery; and (4)
state law false arrest.

13. Affiant was held in violation of Fourth Amendment, and Trezvant vs. City of Tampa for more than
thirty-three hours, and was refused access to a Magistrate, but was given an offer by MPD Officer
Ellason Flagg Badge # 3506 IBM # 1757. This offer given by Officer Flagg invited Affiant to sign an
unread document and she could be released from the hospital and the police would not take Affiant to
jail, but Affiant refused to sign the document, which Affiant was told she could not read, and again
Affiant demanded to speak with a Magistrate and continued to ask to see the Complaint, or the
Charging Instrument, and was refused.

14. Affiant demands an investigation for racial profiling and selective bias due to the clear and blatant
attacks against indigenous citizens by Memphis police officers evidenced in recent suits, excessive
bonds by Judge Joyce Broffitt, assaults of indigenous citizens in open court as was the case of Erique
Richardson in Judge Louis J Montesi, and you are obligated to report these claims to the proper
agencies; as required by your Oath of Office.

15. Affiant comes now to your office, having come before as witness for other Washitaw citizens who
tried, but were denied, the right to file official complaints against officers with tactics of intimidation
by use of threatening remarks and refusals to investigate claims against officers employed with and
by Memphis Police Department.

Page 4 of 7
 16. The actions against Affiant were illegal and unwarranted, and it was most unlawful for officer to
damage Affiant’s hand, which has been creating great mental stress from the recurring pain inability
to use my fingers while wearing finger braces; and yes your inaction will force yet another federal
claims re-action. Further, it is Affiant understands that it is Internal Affairs Bureau’s responsibility to
investigate these claims when requested by an alleged victim, and Affiant makes such request, and
demand; even if you do nothing, this request and demand is made.

It is also recommended that Memphis Police receive diversity training concerning these
matters of indigenous people co-existing in America.
1. It is Affiant’s understanding, officers’ actions in these offenses will not afford their entitlement to
qualified immunity, according to Affiant’s understanding the defense of qualified immunity shields a
government official from § 1983 liability for harms arising from an official's discretionary acts, so
long as the discretionary acts do not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional
rights of which a reasonable person would have known, Vinyard vs. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340. It is
Affiant’s belief that hasty Memphis Police officers acted outside the scope of their discretionary
authority, which is evidenced in the conspired Affidavit of Complaint, which reflects Affiant’s
constant declaration of not being a U.S. Citizen. Affiant repeatedly noticed officers of constitutional
and international law violations. Therefore, it appears as though their actions were in violation of
their constitutional Oaths and Affiant’s rights.

2. Affiant claims Lt. Rush violated Constitutional barriers put in place to protect Affiant’s rights and Lt.
Rush violated those rights by arresting Affiant without probable cause and believes an arrest without
probable cause violates the right to be free from unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment.
Redd v. City of Enterprise, 140 F.3d 1378, 1382 (11th Cir. 1998) and Affiant and others had already
informed Lt. Rush that all on the scene were non-U.S. Citizens, but were indigenous citizens with full
declarations on record and demanded that he contact his superior; superiors did arrive, but approved
illegal detention.

3. Probable cause exists where an arrest is objectively reasonable based on the totality of the
circumstances. Rankin v. Evans, 133 F.3d 1425, 1435 (11th Cir. 1998). This standard is met when the
facts and circumstances presented to an officer "would cause a prudent person to believe, under the
circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an
offense." Id. (quoting Williamson v. Mills, 65 F.3d 155, 158 (11th Cir. 1995).

4. As a citizen of Choctaw, a crime is committed when there is a living victim, such as: victims of
assault, rape, robbery, murder, arson, theft, kidnapping, trespassing, etc.

5. It is Affiant’s belief that a formal letter of apology should be issued immediately from Lt. Rush and
superiors for issuing such illegal order of arrest and conspired false claims written in Affidavit of
Complaint [according to Memphis Police Department Policy and Procedures Chapter II Section 10,

Page 5 of 7
 Affidavits of Complaint: Whenever a Defendants [sic] is arrested without a Warrant for any
misdemeanor charge, the arresting officer must obtain the appropriate Affidavit of Complaint, fill it
out completely, and have it reviewed and approved by the General Sessions Clerk on duty in the
detention area. It is critical that the arresting officer puts sufficient information in the Affidavit of
Complaint to establish probable cause, also the County Jail will not accept a prisoner unless an
arrest ticket and an Affidavit of Complaint is completed] against Affiant in violation of law and
Affiant’s rights.

6. Affiant does herein request criminal charges against Memphis Police Officer, Tonia Cope, Badge #
5018 and IBM # 11770 for reasons herein mentioned, declared and described above.

I declare that the foregoing facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. If any claim, statement,
fact, or portion in this action is held inapplicable or invalid; such decision does not affect the validity of any
other portion of this action. I request that prosecuting attorney receive a true copy of my complaint and
Statement of Probable Cause within 10 days pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sections 3 & 4 (Misprision of Felony &
Accessory After the Fact).

Further, I request that the State Prosecuting Attorney inform me, as to when and where the Grand Jury meets
and the name of the Foreman and his or her contact info so that I may provide testimony.

Seal

:Kiki Onay:©

Notice
Using a notary on this document does not constitute any adhesion, nor does it alter my status in any manner. The purpose
for notary is verification and identification only and not for entrance into any foreign jurisdiction.
Jurat
____________________________________________________________________________________
State of Tennessee /
County of Shelby /ss.:

:Kiki Onay:©declares to be the age of majority, one capable of making this complaint, and that this complaint is made
with clean hands in good faith, with Explicit Reservation of Rights, acknowledged, executed and certified this
“Complaint”, to be true and correct to the best of her knowledge pursuant to Law, except as to matters stated to be on
information and belief, and as to those, believes those to be true, this Twelfth Day of the Tenth Month, A.D. Two-
thousand Ten.

Page 6 of 7
______________________________________ _____________________
Notary Public My Commission Expires

Notary Stamp

Page 7 of 7