Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03262002 - C27 CLAIM, : BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD ACTION: March 26,2002 Claim Against the County, or District Governed by ) the Board of Supervisors,Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), given 1� V Pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and ' 915.4. Please note all "Warnings". AMOUNT: $150,000 E$ 2 8 2002 COUNTY COUNSEL JerryBerkowitz MARTINEZ CALIF. ATTORNEY: DATE RECEIVED: February 26, 2002 ADDRESS: 5080 Discovery Point BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: _ _February 26,2002 Byron, CA 94514 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Hand delivered I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel' Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. JOHN SWEM Dated:. February 28, 2002 By: Deputy II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors this claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed.The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). O Other: Dated: , - -L By: Deputy County Counsel 111. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator(2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant,(Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: This Claim is rejected in full. O Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: r r JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK, By f , Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6)months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim.. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For Additional Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a,citizen of the United States,over age 18 and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California,postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant,addressed,tq t ;e claimant as shown above. Dated: 10f)- JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK B � Deputy Clerk CLAIM OF JERRY SAMUEL BERK.OWITZ 5080 DISCOVERY POINT REMOVED BYRON, CA 9451 FEB 2 62002 CLERK OARD PERVISORS CONTRACOSTACO. PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE §910 On or about November 8, 2001, Jerry Samuel Berkowitz, 508€3'Discovery Point, Byron, CA 94514, sustained injury in an accident, which occurred at the intersection of Walnut Boulevard and Concord .avenue in the unincorporated area in Centra Costa County, California. The injury was sustained by Mr. Berkowitz and the occupant of another vehicle, Sandra Dianne Perley, 717 Heather Place, Brentwood, CA 94513. Both occupants of the two vehicles intersection collision were seriously injured due to the fact that Mr. Berkowitz entered the intersection without stopping at the stop sign that was located several feet off allegedly faded "step ahead" legend on pavement, that, with respect to negligence of the county, there was dangerous condition, at such intersection, at which step sign allegedly could not be seen at night due to presence of tree and shrubbery; Mr. Berkowitz is making a claim of $150,000.00 for property and physical injury sustained in said collision. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is tate and correct. DATED: " RRY; BE TZ CLAIM OF JERRY SAMUEL BERKOWITZ CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY � 1 BOARD ACTION: March 26,2002, Claim Against the County, or DistrictGoverned by ) the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the RX ,_21ERT Board ofSupervisors. (Paragraph IV below), given Pursuant to Government Code Section 913'and 9 i 5.4. Pleasenote all "Warnings". FEB 2 8 2002 AMOUNT; $200 COUNTY COUNSEL CLAIMANT: David Fredrick MARTINEZ CALIF. ATTORNEY; DATE RECEIVED: February 27.2402 ADDRESS: 4876 Trenton St BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: Febru@U 27, 2402 Oakley, CA 94561 BY'MAIL POSTMARKED: 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. � JOHN SWEE ' � Dated; Februar 28 2402 B Deput 5 U' µ -�- y p y II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisor' ( ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 914 and 910.2, ( 3This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 914.2, and we are so notifying claimant.The Board cannotactfor 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed.The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim(Section 911.3). ( ) Other: f Dated: -- By: Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator(2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant(Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors'present: 04 This Claim is rejected in full. O Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated. JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK,By ` {' ;Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section'9'13) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6)months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter.If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For Additional"Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that'I am now, and at all times herein mentioned,have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California,postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board'Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: /,-mow r sf` %c,. JOHN'SWEETEN, CLERIC.By , � Deputy Clerk Claim to: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANT A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or,before December 31, 1987, must be presented not later than the 100`h day after tete accrual of the cause of action.. Claims relating to.causes of action for death or for injury,to person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or after January 1, 1988, must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Govt. Code§911.2.) B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of SupervisorS at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building,651 Pine Street,Martinez,CA 94553. C. If Claim is against a district governess by the Board of Supervisors, rather than the County,the name of the District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against more than one public entity,separate claims must be filed against each public entity. E. fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims. Penal Code See. 72 at the encs of this form. RE: Claim by cii/t f}, E C ) Reserved for Clerk's Filing Stamp W 74 Tref 4".. ED Against the County of Contra Costa or FEB 2 2002 District) CLERK BOARD OF sUPERVFSORS CONTRA COSTA CO. (Fill in Name) The undersigned claimant herebv makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above named District in the sum of$ r E and in support of this claire represents as follows: 1. When did the damage ori .um occurs (Give exact Date and Hour) _ - --- - -- ---- - --- ----- 2. Where did the damage or injury occur:' (Include City and County) 3 Hove- did the damage or injury, occur." {Give full details:use extra�er if rgguired) brd'v;!v � � caC 00 k/,e C ..A.-.. 1. .•e,�..�' ppr e�t' �ySSf AP ✓'etc/o� -147 :f¢> t/�Qr E' �/ r /�r"f �' �-laS . t,✓0-444 �tG9i -e CAncl 14 iced 8V et- 4. What particular act or omission on the part of count or district officers,�servants, or employees caused the injury or damage? 1r+tl c t to`� CcC rt r G? y, 3'C3�CY r e r (Over) 5. ''What are the names of county or district officers,servants,or employees causing the damage or injury' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. What damages or injuries do you claim resulted'; (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage.} :C How was the above claimed amount computed,? {Include the estimated amount of ani•prospective injury`or damage.) -;_• __-------------------------------------------- S. Names2d addresses of witnesses,doctors,and hospitals 9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury: - -- - - - - ATE ITEM ANIOUN, Gov. Code Sec, 910.2 provides: "The claim must be sip, d"by theclaitr►ant SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or by some person onhisbehalf.." Name and Address of Attornev (Claimant's Signature j (Address} Telephone No. Telephone No. NOTICE Section 7:of the Penal Code provides: "Every person who:with intent to defraud,presents for allowance or far payment to anv state board or officer,or to any county, city or district,board or officer,authuri�zed to allow or pad the same if gentriue, ani false ar.fraudulent claim.bill, account,voucher,or writiang,is punishable either by imprisonment in the county fail for a period of not more than one year, by a fine of not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000 ), or by both such imprisonment and fine,or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars (S10,000 ), or by both such imprisonment and fine OffIC.E OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL a SILVANO B.MARCHESI `COUNTY OF CONTRACOSTA COUNTY COUNSEL Administration Building ,p ms`s 651 Pine Street, 91" Floor . e ',a* SHARON L. ANDERSON Martinez, California 94553-1229 " _ ° CHIEFA5SISTANT f- F (925) 335-1800 f f� GREGORY C.HARVEY �s �i�pai1`t "'' fp VALERIE J. RANCHE (925) 646-10'78 (fax) ASSISTANTS °x NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY AND/OR NON-ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIM TO: Mr. David Fredrick 4876 Trenton Street Oakley, CA 94561 RE: CLAIM OF: David Fredrick Please Take Notice as Follows: The claim you presented against the County of Contra Costa or District governed by the Board of Supervisors fails to comply substantially with the requirements of California Government Code Section 910 and 910.2, or is otherwise insufficient for the reasons checked below: [ ] I. The claim fails to state the name and post office address of the claimant. [X] 2. The claim fails to state the post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent. [ ] 3. The claim fails to state the date, place or other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted. [ ] 4. The claim fails to state the name(s)of the public employee(s) causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known. [ 15. The claim fails to state whether the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000). If the claim totals less than ten thousand dollars($10,000), the claim fails to state the amount claimed as of the date of presentation,the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage or loss so far as known, or the basis of computation of the amount claimed. If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), the claim fails to state whether jurisdiction over the claim would rest in municipal or superior court. Page 1 Mr. David Fredrick Re: Claim Page Two [X] 6. The claim is not signed by the claimant or by some person on his or her behalf. [ 17. Other: SILVANO B. MARCHESI COUNTY COUNSEL By: MONIKA L. COOPER Deputy County Counsel CERTIFICATE OF-SERVICE BY MAIL (C.C.P.§§ 1012, 1013'x,2015.5;Evidence Code§§641,664) I declare that my businessaddressis the County Counsel's Office of Contra Costa County,651 Pine Street,Martinez,California 94553;1 ant a citizen of the United States,over 18 years of age,employed in Contra Costa County,and not a party to this action. I served a true copy of this Notice of Insufficiency and/or Non-acceptance of Claim by placing it in an envelope addressed as shown above,sealed and postage fully prepaid thereon,and thereafter was,deposited this day in the U.S.Mail at Martinez,California. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: February 28,2002,at Martinez,California. Kathleen O'Connell cc: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors(original) Risk Management (NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY OF CLAIM:GOVT.CODE§§910,910.2,920.4,910.8) Page 2 CLAIM BOARDOF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD ACTION: March 26 2002 Claire Against the County, or District Governed by the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, } NOTICE TO CLAIMANT' and Board Action.All Section references are to } The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. 1 notice of the action taken on your claim by the 7�@ Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), given Pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and R!EB 2 8 2402 915.4. Please note all "Warnings". COUNTY-COUNSEL AMOUNT: in excess 510,400 MARTINEZ CALIF. CLAIMANT: Stephen Vidovich Sr&Karen Vidovich ATTORNEY: Dennis Cunningham DATE RECEIVED: February 252442 ADDRESS: 3163 Mission St#301 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON; _ February 25, 2442 San Francisco, CA 91110' BY MAIL POSTMARKED:February 22,2442 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy,of the above-noted claim. JOHN SWEE C Dated: _- February 28,2042 By: Deputy i,,% Il. FRqM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Superviso 0 { fihis claim complies substantially with Sections 914 and 910.2. { ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 914 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). { } Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). { ) Other: Dated: Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator(2) { } Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant(Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: {` This Claire is rejected in full. { ) Omen I certify that this is a true and:correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: ,l Rk C11 06 , _ JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK, By 441 � >Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions,you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mil to file a courtaction on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For Additional Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned,have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18 and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the c aimant as shown above. Dated; i aidiCA", P JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK..By `, Y Deput Clerk Dennis Cunningham Lawyer + 3163 Mission St ,#301 San Francisco,CA 94110 FEB 2,52002 415-285-8091/FAX285-8092 CLERK Bt3AOF su VIS Ps corn R�20 Z CLAIMS UNDER Sec. 910 et'seq. of the GOVERNMENT CODE of The STATE of CALIFORNIA TO: The Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa Contra Costa County Sheriff s Department The City of Danville, California,City Collector and Board of Supervisors Danville Police Department CLAIMANTS: These claims are submitted on behalf of the family,the Estate, and the heirs at law of the late Stephen Vidovich,who was killed by police gunfire in the town of Danville on the night of August 27-28, 2001. The claimants are Stephen Vidovich, Sr. and Karen Vidovich, 10013'El Dorado, San Ramon, CA 94583,who are the decedent's parents and(projected)co-administrators of his Estate,which is in formation; and Matthew De La Gardie,the decedent's infant son,by his mother and Next Friend, Kristin De La Gardie, 89 San Marco Place, San Ramon, CA 945833, who will seek appointment as his Guardian ad Litem. Claimants also assert that the decedent's family has met with persistent obstruction, evasiveness and other"stonewalling"by employees of Contra-Costa-County and/or the City of Danville, in their attempts to acquire reports and documents they were entitled to which concern the incident which resulted in the death of Stephen Vidovich, and other information in the case,and, in addition,that false testimony about important evidence was presented'by one or more such employees at the Coroner's Inquest, Accordingly,the Claimants also seek redress of injury and loss arising from an apparent policy and practice of cover-up on the part;of the two entities,and employees shown to be responsible therefor: All Claimants can be reached and Notices should be sent to them seat in care of the Undersigned,"at the above address and telephone numbers. OCCURRENCE: What is known is as follows: The decedent was driving'on San Ramon Boulevard in Danville, California at or about 11:30 p.m.the night of August 27, 2001. Danville police officers Roberts and Adams reported that they gassed him in their patrol car and noticed his vehicle license was expired. The drove further on and turned around. The decedent in the.meantime pulled into a"76" gas:station at the corner of Sycamore Street and parked his car there. After returning to that corner,the officers pulled into the gas station and stopped behind Stephen's car, What happened next is in question.. The officers reported that Stephen'displayed a handgun while seated inside his car, causing them to fire their own weapons at him more than 20 times,killing him. The officers do not assert that any shot was fired at them:'by the decedent. VidovichiNotice of Claim.. Page two. INJURIES AND DAMAGES: Apparent violation of the decedent's rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of California, and civil rights, per 42 U.S. Code#1983 et seq., and Cal. Civil Code##51.7 and 52.1; Wrongful Death per Cal. C.C.P. #377.60 et seq.;Assault&'Battery, General Negligence and Negligent Supervision, and related wrongs under the Common Law and the laws of the State of California: PUBLIC EIV ELOYEES INVOLVED: Officers Robert Roberts and Deputy David Adams, and unknown,named employees, supervisors, chain of command and policy-makers in the Contra Costa Sheriff's Department and the Danville P.D. ANI_ 0UNT: The amount claimed is in excess of ten thousand dollars, and,any action brought would be in Superior Court or U.S. District Court, and would not be a `limited civil case'. DATED: February 21,2002 qDetnnis llX s rn unningham for the Claimants Dennis Cunningham Lawyer 3163 Mission St.,#301 San Francisco,CA 94110 415-'285-8091/FAX 285-8092 February 22, 2002 Clerk of the Board Board of Supervisors County of Contra Costa 651 fine Street,#106 Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Friends; Enclosedis a Notice of Claim against the County and the City of Danville. Would you please return a file-stamped copy to me in the envelope provided? Than you very much. S. erely, Dennis Cunningham Eric. CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD ACTION: March 26,2002 Claim Against the County, or District Governed by the Board of Supervisors,Routing Endorsements, NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. TFAT notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), given Pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and MAR 0 4 2002 915.4. Please note all"Warnings". NrY AMOUNT: Unknown COUCOUNSELMARTINEZ,CALIF. CLAIMANT: George Dye III, Amie Dye, Kristin Dye ATTORNEY: James O'Donnell DATE RECEIVED: February 28. 2002 ADDRESS: 309 Lennon Ln#101 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: February.28,2002 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Hand Delivered I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. I"LI- ,LN L JOHN SWEET Dated: March 1 ,, 2002 By: Depu y 11. FROM: CountyCounsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Superviso, (,, '`This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). O Other: 4 Dated: S - F" 0,1- By: Deputy County Counsel 111. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator(2) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant(Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: This Claim is rejected in fall. O Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minute for this date. 4r� Dated: JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK, By YT6,11 Deputy Clerk WARNING(Gov, code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six(6)months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For Additional Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California,postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: /94* Deputy Clerk JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK By P. 001 tr3E;'Q8fF31 15:5 YClaim to: BOA"Of SU `ER VISORSOF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY v INSMC'"l'MS TC QAC IAN?' A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops,and which accrue on or before December 31, 1987,must be presented not later than the 1 Oe day atter the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes OfactiO for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or after January 1, 1988, must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later than one year after the accrual'of the cause of action. (Gov°t Code:911.2;) B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 106,County` Administration,building,651 pint Street,Martinez, CA 94553. C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors,rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in: D. If the claims is against more than one public entity, separate claims must be filed against each public entity. E. ymu . See penalty for fraudulent claims,Penial Code Sec.72 at the end of this form. *ltr�ssss*�##M!#'#sR!*tl+tt#sits##+kM##i#*ssss+l'##►s#rtl+Ys�M#it*s*i**�Isk+�MAs*s�rtss#*#'wk!#�rtssai* RE: Claim By GEORGE DYE III, AMIE DYE, Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp } BELINDA DYE individually, and on beriglt or her minor dauc er, j KRISTIN DYE Against the County of Contra Costa or FEB 2 8 2002 CLARK 86ARD of SUPERVISORS District) CONTRA COSTA co. (Fill in name) The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named district in the sum of S and in support of this claim represents as follows: *Jurisdiction rests in the unlimited Jurisdiction of the superior Court, 1. When dict:the damage or T3wy occur?(Give:exact date and hour) September 3, 2001 , at approximately 10: 00 p.m. 2. Where slid the damage or injury occur'(Include city aat+d county) CCCSOi, , Martinez; Detention Facility 100 Ward Street Martinez, CA 94553 3. How did the damage tit in�arty r? Give.full details;use extra paper if required Claimants h s and father, George Clark Dye, commuted suicide' while under the custody, management and control of Contra Costa County. ra 08r�8rra3 26.00 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants, or employees caused the injuryor damage? Negligent management and supervision of George Clark Dye. Negligent medical and psychological diagnosis, care and treatment of George Clark Dye. Violation and breach of civil rights of S. *WtthiWi€ t'mty or district officers, servants, or employees causing the damage or injury? Various employees and agents of the Contra 'Costa County Martinez detention facility, including, but not limited to, the medical unit, mental health unit, and guard unit. 6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted?(Give full extant of injuries or damages claimed.Attach two estimates for auto damage.) Claimants are deprived of a kind and laving husband 'and`father, of his care, support, guidence and protection. 7. How was the amount claimed abw4e,computed?(ImIude the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage.) To bedetermined by trier of fact. S. Names and addresses of witnesse ,d ctora, an�f'hospitats. See response to No. above. 9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury. 2An 3BE 9/10/01, 9:00 'a.m. $1 , 000. 00: *s♦s's+�*�e**s+r*+w+►k***s*tr*sws*a*tt�**tt+rs*rcr *Es+�st***,ret,�*v�wras*w*rs***f�err�s�e*�*s+tersr�*��r�es�* ) Gov.Code Sec. 910.2 provides"The claim must be i) signed by the;claimant or by some person on his behalf." Name and Address R�'Attorftey James J. 0 Donnell, Esq. O'DONNELL & SMITH 309 Lennon Lane, Suite 101 aim $i Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Signature) ) 309 Lennon Lane, Suite '101 } (Address) Walnut Creek, CA 94598 ) TelephoneNo.f 925).935-1707 )Ttlep one Na. ( 925)935-1707 *ts:ra�r*,r*a*�r+rs*r►+sirs+e+rr+tt +rss»�r-�rsss*+:�s*+e**�*s «�r#r��*as.�tts�et*�rsa�rts�r**s+►�r**�r+a�s+r�r*at•� NOTICE SeCtion 72 ct''t a P*W Cult p wAdes: F-vc*pastae who.with Ment to deilraud,pma nts for&Uwvastice or the ps mat to 4my state board or ollicar,or to=y +x y,City,or Os€rict boatd or of r,;authorized to allow or pity the trams if wine,any false Iorft=duleat claim,bid#,account, vMcbsr,or witting.is putdshable cidr by imp isonztmtat in the o=ty*1 for a'paiod of trot mors than Otte yew,by a fte of t+trt taccs"All one 60mad(slAW),or by t oth tach impri mmt anti fes,or by ingw1sot meat is the two priaoa,by a fine of not exfteftg ten thousand talars(S,0,# ),to by both auh impdsmanem and Bae. CLAIM BOARD of SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD ACTION: March 26, 2002 Claim Against the County, or District Governed by ) the Board of Supervisors,Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to } The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. notice of the action taken on your claim by the g7*IM Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), given Pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and MAR 0 5 2€02 915.4. Please note all "Warnings". AMOUNT': Unknown COUNTY COUNSEL. MARTINEZ CALIF. CLAIMANT: Estate of Darnell W. Toliver ATTORNEY: Joseph Johnson DATE RECEIVED: March 1, 2002 ADDRESS: 950 S. Bascom Avenue#1113 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK.ON: March 1, 2002 San Jose, CA 95128 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Hand;,Delivered 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ` TO: County Counsel' Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. JOHN SWEET ! Dated: March 4 ' 2002. By: Deputy -ki 11. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (t�This claim compliessubstantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( } This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 9`10 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910:8). ( } Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim(Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: � ' By: Deputy County Counsel III. FROM Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel(1) County Administrator(2) { } Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant(Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: This Claim is rejected in full. ( } Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date, f Dated: Vaid 411 JOAN SWEETEN, CLERK, By , Deputy Clerk WARNING(Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six(6)months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For Additional Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned,have been a citizen of the United States,over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California,postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant,addressed to the clamant'as shown above. Dated. �� JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK By �� _ Deputy Clerk Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County To: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Room 106 County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, Martinez,Ca 94533 Re: Claim by R ECEIV Estate of Darnell MAR 12002 1"a ne Toliver CLERK SOAR© F SUP NTRA TAG0. Against the County of Contra Costa Or District Fill in Name The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa, or the above named district in the sum to be determined and in support of this claim represents as follows-Court Jurisdiction is Superior Court 1. When did the damage or injury occur?(Give exact date and hour) September 4,2001 at 0300. 2. Where did the damage or injury occur? (Include City and Country) Camino Diablo Road/EB at.9 miles East of Vasco Road 3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details;use extra paper if required) Decedent was a passenger in a vehicle that was traveling East of Camino Diablo Road.The roadway was very dangerous and unsafe.There was no adequate street lighting,and the design of the narrow roadway was essentially unsafe and dangerous.Furthermore,there was a substantial and dangerous elevated hump on the Roadway.There was no warning by the County of this dangerous and elevated hump,and as a result the driver of the vehicle lost control,91cidding,across the west bound lane,resulting in the death of the two passengers and the driver(all occupants of the vehicle). 4. What particular actor emission on the part of the county or district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? The county failed to maintain the street in'a safe and non-dangerous condition. 5. What are the names of county or district officers, servants or employees causing the damage or injury? To determined. b. What damages or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage) Loss of life of Darnell Wayne Toliver: 7. How was the above claimed amount computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damages.) To be determined. 8. Names and addresses of witnesses,doctors, and hospitals. See police report. 9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury. Date Item Amount To be determined. rcraaarrr'arr■�-ar■r■raarr=tara��■rrr�'■■■r■rrr■r-■ra■arrrr■'a-■rrrr■ar■rr■arraaa■rar■a■ Gov. Code Sec. 910.2 provides: "The claim must be signed by the claimant or by some person on his behalf." SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney)Joseph Johnson Name and Address of Attorney Joseph Johnson (Claimant's Signature) Attorney;at Law 950`S. Bascom Avenue,Suite 1113 ` • ' cis c,ww+ A1/C # i��3 , -t San Jose, Ca 95128 (Address) A Telephone No.: (408)977-0988 Telephone No.: f o b) 'q77`o q1 V ■■rrrrarrarrsrraraar'■ar�r`.rrrrs�rrrrrrrra.■aaarararr 'aarara-■aaa'■a a rr'�rarr,rrr..r'.rr.�rrr NOTICE Secriot: iy of the Fsuai Code proeid=: -17 very person who.with intent to defraud,Presents for allowance or for payment ro any stat;`hoard or oiiic2n or to an,v counry.circ or.1istrir boas- or officer, authorized to allow or pav ttse same if cnuinc, any f ?se or fraudulent bill. amount. voachcr.`or vsriisz�,is punishable either be imPmonment in the court-N.Jail for a period of nCe' more than one year, by a fine of no: ezc>edin one thousand dollars Si.oUo ;; or by both such i=prisonsnear aad Pirie, or'uv impr oumeat in the state prison, by a fine of not esceedin,tea thous ri dollars ' 510,000 j, or by but.d such imprisanrnernt and Ime CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD ACTION: March 26,2002 Claim Against the County, or District Governed by ) the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action, All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. notice of the action taken on your claim by the RX Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and MAR 0 5 2002 915.4.Please note all "Warnings". AMOUNT: $40,000,000 COUNTY COUNSEL MAATiNFZ CALIF. CLAIMANT: E. Pespitro, J. Javier, L. Javier,A. Viloria,J. Javier, C. Javier ATTORNEY: Gregory Silva DATE RECEIVED: March 4,2002 ADDRESS: 512 Westline Dr#300 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: March 4, 2002 Alameda, CA 94501 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: February 28, 2002 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attachedis a copy of the above-noted claim. JOHN SWEE Dated March 4 2002 By: Deputy 11. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (+:'This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim(Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: ' o By: Deputy County Counsel IIT. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel(1) County Administrator(2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant(Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: Q ) This Claim is rejected in full. ( � Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its mi Utes for this date. Dated:' ' '+�. � JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK, By "- ,Deputy Clerk WARNING(Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six. (6)months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For Additional Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California,postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. �7 e an41�Dated: ? Ll _ " JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK By % l! Deputy Clerk I Gregory A. Silva, Esq. (State Bar #67543) LAW OFFICES OF STONEHOUSE & SILVA 2 512 Westline Drive, Suite 300 RECEIVED Alameda, CA 94501 3 Telephone (510) 865-7350 MAS 42002 4 Attorneys for Claimants CLERK 807RD-6-F SUPERvISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 9 10 In the matter of the CASE NO. Claim of : i1 ELISEA PESPITRO, guardian CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY 12 for VINCENT PAUL AND ROSE COUNTY OF CONTRA COBTA ANN PESPITRO, minors, JAIME (§910, et seq. Gov. Code) 13 B. JAVIER, LARRY B. JAVIER, ADORA JAVIER VILORIA, JOVAN 14 JAVIER, CEFERINO JAVIER JR. , 15 Claimants, 16 vs . 17 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, 18 a Public Entity. 19 / 20 Elisea Pespitro, guardian for Vincent Paul and Rose Ann 21 Pespitro, minors, Jaime B. Javier, Larry B. Javier, Adora Javier 22 Viloria, Jovan Javier, Ceferino Javier, Jr. hereby present their 23 claim to the County of Contra Costa pursuant to Section 910 of the 24 California Government Code. 25 26 CLAIM AGAINST COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 1 I The name and post office address of Claimants are as follows: 2 (1) Elisea Pespitro Guardian ad Litem for: 3 Vincent Paul Pespitro and Rose Ann Pespitro d 561-B Pacific Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 5 (2) Jaime B. Javier 6 1645 Hovanec Street San Diego, CA 92114 7 (3) Larry B. Javier 8 280 J Rizal Street Silang, Cavite 9 Philippines 4118 10 (4) Adora Javier Viloria c/o 280 J Rizal Street 11 Silang, Cavite Philippines 4118 12 (5) Jovan Javier 13 c/o 1645 Hovanec Street San Diego, CA 92114 1d (6) Ceferino Javier Jr. 15 HS-14 FPO AP 96601 16 17 The post office address to which Claimants desire notice of 18 this claim to be sent is as follows : 19 Law Offices of Stonehouse and Silva 512 Westline Drive, Suite 300 20 Alameda, CA 94501 21 On January 1, 2002 , at the intersection of Cummings Skyway and 22 Crockett Boulevard, Claimants received wrongful death claims as a 23 result of a collision which occurred between a vehicle driven by 24 Vicente Batino Pespitro and a truck driven by Dennis Allen Freeman. 25 The intersection at Crockett Boulevard and Cummings Skyway was a 26 CLAIM AGAINST COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 2 1 dangerous and defective roadway design which caused the subject 2 accident . 3 As a result of the aforementioned accident, because of the 4 dangerous and defective roadway design located at the Cummings 5 Skyway and the Crockett Boulevard intersection, Vincent Paul and 6 Rose Ann Pespitro sustained personal injury to themselves and 7 suffered the loss of the Lives of their mother and father, Vicente 8 Pespitro and Mirafore Pespitro, and their grandmother Antonia 9 Javier. 10 As a further consequence of the dangerous and defective 11 roadway design located at the Cummings Skyway and the Crockett 12 Buolevard intersection, Jaime B. Javier, Larry B. Javier, Adora 13 Javier Viloria, Jovan Javier, and Ceferino Javier, Jr. suffered the 14 loss of their mother, Antonia Javier. 15 So far as is known to Claimants at the date of filing this 16 claim, Claimants have incurred damages in the amount of 17 $15, 000, 000 . 00 (Fifteen Million Dollars) each because of the 18 wrongful death of their loved ones . 19 The public employees causing injury and damages are unknown at 20 this time. Claimants identify such employees as Does 1 through 10, 21 inclusive. 22 At the time of the presentation of this claim, each of the 23 Claimants makes claims in the following sums : 2d (1) Vincent Paul Pespitro, a minor, thru his Guardian ad Litem, Elisea 25 Pespitro, for injuries sustained and the wrongful death of his 26 mother, father, and grandmother $15, 000, 000 . 00 CLAIM AGAINST COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 3 1 2 (2 ) Rose Ann Pespitro, a minor, thru her Guardian ad Litem, Elisea 3 Pespitro, for injuries sustained and the wrongful death of her 4 mother, father, and grandmother $15, 000, 000 . 00 5 (3) Jaime B. Javier for loss of life of mother $ 5, 000, 000 . 00 6 (4) Larry B. Javier 7 for loss of life of mother $ 5, 000, 000 . 00 8 (5) Adora Javier Viloria for loss of life of mother $ 5, 000, 000 . 00 9 (6) Jovan Javier 10 for loss of life of mother $ 5, 000, 000 .00 11 (7) Ceferino Javier, Jr. for loss of life of mother $ 5, 000, 000 . 00 12 13 Date: February 27, 2002 LAW OFFICES OF STONEHOUSE AND SILVA 14 15 By 16 Greg ry Silva • Attorneys for Claimants 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CLAIM AGAINST COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 4 LAW OFFICES OF STONEHOUSE& SILVA JAMES A.STONEHOUSE SUITE 300 GREGORY A.SILVA CERTIFIED SPECIALIST,PROBATE. ESTATE PUNNING 6 TRUST LAW 512 WESTLtNE DRIVE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION ALAMEDA,CALIFORNIA 94.501 (510) 865-7350 FAX(510) 865-5754 February 27, 2002 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED CONTRA COSTA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 65 i Pine Street, 1st floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re: PESPITRO/JAVIER Wrongful Death Matter Dear Clerk of the Board of Supervisors: Enclosed are government claims on behalf of our respective clients in connection with an accident which occurred on January 1,2002 at the intersection of Crockett Boulevard and Cummings Skyway in the County of Contra Costa. Please file the claims and provide us with enclosed filed copies in the envelope provided. Thank you for your anticipated prompt response. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF STONEHOUSE& ILVA By CTre . hgilvla GAS:smr Enclosure cc: Clients CLAIM BOARDOF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY l BOARD ACTION: March 26,,2002 Claim Against the County, or District Governed by the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), given R1ant to Government Code Section 913 and 57 Please note all"Warnings". AMOUNT: Exceed$100,000 MAR 0 5 2002 COUNTY COUNSEL CLAIMANT: Rickey E. Sparks Jr MMT1NE'L CALF. ATTORNEY. Thomas Blomberg Jr DATE RECEIVED: March 4, 2002 ADDRESS: 2033 N. Main St#900 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: March 4, 2002 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: February 28. 2002 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached'is a copy of the above-noted claim. JOHN'SWEE , Dated: March 4 2002 By; Deputy �---"- II. FROM: County Counsel TO Clerk of the Board of Supervisors {4 This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant.The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim(Section 911.3). O Other: Dated: By: Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel(1) County Administrator(2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant(Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: (-'So This Claim is rejected in full. O Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered'in its minutes for this date. � n Dated: ` . JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK, By "W ' "tV ,'Deputy Clerk. WARNING (Gov.code section',913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6)months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For Additional Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been a citizen of the United States,over age 18; and that today''I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California,postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: IM �. JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK By , Deputy Clerk I VICTORIA R. NUETZEL# 115124 THOMAS G. BLOMBERG, JR.#164071 2 NUETZEL & BLOMBERG LLP 2033 N. Main Street, Suite 900 3 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925)952-4500 4 Facsimile: (925) 952-4502 RECEIVED ECE D 5 Attorneys for Defendant, RICKEY EDWARD SPARKS,JR. MAR 4 20'02 6 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 7 CONMRA COS Co. 9 10 11 12 Claim of RICKEY EDWARD SPARKS, JR., Case No.: 13 RICKEY EDWARD SPARKS, JR. CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 14 Claimant, 15 V. 16 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, OFFICE 17 OF THE SHERIFF OF CONTRA COSTA 18 COUNTY,TOWN OF MORAGA, MORAGA POLICE DEPARTMENT 19 Respondents. 20 21 22 To the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF OF 23 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY; TOWN OF MORAGA; and MORAGA POLICE 24 DEPARTMENT: 25 You are hereby notified that RICKEY EDWARD SPARKS,JR., whose address is 2422 26 Paloma Street, Pinole, California 94564, claims damages from the COUNTY OF CONTRA 27 COSTA, OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,TOWN OF MORAGA, 28 and the MORAGA POLICE DEPARTMENT and represents as follows: 1 1. When did the damage or injury occur? This claim is based on personal injuries 2 sustained by claimant on or about September 28, 2001, at approximately 9 a.m.. 3 2. Where did the damage or injury occur? Claimant's injuries were sustained in 4 the vicinity of La Cresenta Road and La Colina Road in El Sobrante, California. 5 3. How did the damage or injury occur? On or about Friday, September 28,2001, 6 at approximately 9 a.m., claimant was violently assaulted by Deputy Reed and Deputy Jones, of 7 the Office of the Sheriff of Contra Costa County, and Officer M. Flohr, of the Moraga Police 8 Department. More particularly, during the course of a routine police investigation and without 9 cause;Deputy Reed struck claimant at least fifteen(15) times in the head and other parts of his 10 body with a metal flashlight and nightstick and punched and kicked claimant causing serious 11 bodily injury to claimant, including head, neck and back injuries; Deputy Jones struck claimant 12 an unknown number of times in the head and other parts of his body with a metal flashlight 13 and/or nightstick and punched and kicked claimant causing serious bodily injury, including head, 14 neck and back injuries; and Officer Flohr punched and kicked claimant before and after he was 15 handcuffed, lifted claimant while handcuffed at least four(4)feet into the air and dropped 16 claimant onto the ground causing serious bodily injury,and threatened claimant with a large 17 hunting knife which was also used to cut away clothing from claimant's body causing serious 18 bodily and emotional injuries,including head, neck and back injuries. 19 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county, city,town or their 20 officers,servants, or employees caused the injury or damage? The acts and omissions 21 of the County of Contra Costa,Office of the Sheriff of Contra Costa County, Town of Moraga, 22 and the Moraga Police Department caused, among other things, the following: violation of 23 claimant's civil rights under 42 U.S.C. section 1983; unlawful arrest; assault; battery; employer's 24 negligent hiring, training, supervision and/or retention of unfit empoyees; infliction of emotional 25 distress; and damages per Dillon v. Legg. Moreover, Deputy Reed,Deputy Jones and Officer 26 Flohr violated departmental policies and procedures by using improper and excessive force. 27 Discovery and investigation are continuing into this matter and further acts and omissions on the 28 part of the county,city, town or their officers, servants, or employees may be discovered and - 2 - I alleged as acts and omissions by respondents. 2 5. What are the names of county, city,or town or their officers, servants,or 3 employees causing the damage or injury? County of Contra Costa;Office of the Sheriff of 4 Contra Costa County; Deputy Reed, Office of the Sheriff of Contra Costa County; Deputy Jones, 5 Office of the Sheriff of Contra Costa County; Town of Moraga; Moraga Police Department; and 6 Officer Flohr,Moraga Police Department. Claimant is informed and believes and thereupon 7 alleges that other police officers of the Sheriff of Contra Costa County and/or Moraga Police 8 Department assaulted claimant on September 28, 2001 causing serious bodily and emotional 9 injury to claimant. The names and identities of these persons are unknown at this time. 10 6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? As a result of the above- 11 mentioned misconduct, claimant has suffered, without limitation, severe physical injuries, 12 emotional distress damages, and mental suffering. The amount of damages resulting from said 13 injuries,include, among other things, expenses for medical and hospital care, future expenses for 14 medical and hospital care, damages for permanent physical injury, loss of earnings, damages 15 for emotional distress, and other general and special damages, and exceed$100,000. 16 7. Jurisdiction: This matter constitutes an unlimited civil case. 17 8. Notices All notices or other communications with regard to this claim should be 18 sent to Nuetzel&Blomberg LLP, 2033 N.Main Street, Suite 900, Walnut Creek,California 19 94596. 20 DATED: February 28,2002. 21 22 NUETZEL&BLOMBERG LLP 23 24 25 By:__ r Thomas G. Blomberg,Jr. 26 Attorneys for Claimant .RICKEY EDWARD SPARKS, JR. 27 28 - 3 - I PROOF OF SERVICE BY'MAIL 2 1, Thomas G. Blomberg, Jr., declare: 3 I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to this action. My business address is 2033 4 N. Main:Street, Suite 900,Walnut Creek, CA 94596. 5 On the date below I served the following document: 6 CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 7 Said item was served by placing a true and correct copy of the document in a sealed 8 envelope, sent Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, with postage thereon fully prepaid, and 9 depositing said envelope in a U.S. Post Office box for mailing to: 10 Office of the Sheriff of Contra Costa County 11 c/o Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 12 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez,CA 94553 13 14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 15 foregoing is true and correct. 16 Executed this 28'day of February, 2002. 17 18 19 20 Thomas G. Blomberg, Jr. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4 - CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY { BOARD ACTION: March 26,2002 Claim Against the County, or District Governed by } the Board of Supervisors,Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action.All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. } notice of the action taken on your claim by the Beard of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below),given Pursuant to Government Cade Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings'. AMOUNT: $149.00 MAR 0 8 20F12 'm CLAIMANT: Nick Magic COUNTYCOUNSEL kA#MNEZ CAUF. ATTORNEY: DATE RECEIVED: March 6.2002 ADDRESS: 945 Dewing Ave A BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: March 6.2002 Lafayette, CA 94549 BY MAIL POSTMARKED. March S, 2002 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. JOHNS ?ne 1Ir�41111 Dated: March 7 '2002 By: Deputy II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( his Claim.FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant.The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim(Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: f" By: Deputy County Counsel 111. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator(2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant(Section 912.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: This Claim is rejected in full. ( Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated mf, JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK, By li2), r At l--- ,Deputy Clerk WARNING(Gov.code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions,you have only six(6)months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *Far Additional'Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now,and at all times herein mentioned,have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez,California,postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant,addressed to the claimant as shown above. , Dated fa � ' JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK By Deputy Clerk FiFiF Fri! s ¥ � INVII F f E'w"""':..:: If Fill . i :.:.::.:.:.:.;:.:.- iit t:[[[. :::::::::::: ::..i iii F..............:.. .._.:.>::.:..:..:.........:.:.>.:..:. :' :::t . 6. .......... ..................... i I- �..................;......................................... .. .................................... . ............... ........... .... . .......... .. . ....................... ..................... .� .......... ..............' ........................ .................. . .................................................. ...... ........... ........................... ::::... .......a"::1�.....................R� a 9 .............:...:::. Claim to: BEAR �'D OF MVIS Its CMA. AR 6 200' _ CLERK I _ SUPERUVSORS A. Claims relating to causes of action f ter death cup for ire ` , TA p sons! property Or growing -amps and which accrue on or before Deomber 31, 2967, mint be presented not later than the 100th day after they accrual of the cause of a0tion. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for inJury to person or to personal property or growing craps and which accrue on or attar January i., 1988, must be presented not later than six umths after the accrual of the cage of action. Claims relating to any other cage of action must be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the oat a of action. ( 0vt. Cade 5911.2.) B. Claims must` be filed with the Mark of the Bow Ot � at its CtfiCl� �ti, goom 106, c4unty Administration Buildings 651. Pie Street, "artitlext CA 94553* CO if claim is. against a district goveMed by the BWrd of Supervisors, rather um the County,- the name of the District should be .tilled in. D. if the claim is against more than ole public .entity, separate claims rest be filed against each public entity. E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, renal, Code Seri. 72 at the and of this tirm. ra � a► � * �► +rreeasseeeeasea RE: Claim By Reserved f Clerk's filing stamp Against the County cif Contra Costa or District) Q n nig)) ray a Aly �The undersigned claimant 'hereby makes claim rss e: wof contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $ ! .Q and in support of this claim represents as fellows: jvi5ia ; -:.c't date and hour) .1. �iAei] did the �e of iI]jt�tl`ji te++sL�:i+ f � ` 2. ere d d damage or .injury occur? J(Include city and county) yAd � t 3. How did the damaW W 3n,u-y Occur? (ai a fyal detailesi use extra PUP required) .. C . `�e r.�c..e '_ `+• 'SLA y VW..✓4/ T � �I� {.':r•..1✓�,mow'�1,4 � • �.G.�— .. 4. �+ particular act Qx' ! Son Onthe part C1" county or district pfY"iaers, servants or emplflpees caused .the in,urW or, dump? y • 5 'Uhat are the names of fO=ty ar district officers servants or emloymes eausim the damage or injury? � ~r C4;4 6. Wi at or in juries do you Maim molted? {Give full OXtent, Of injuries or damages 'Cla , 'Attach two estimates for auto damage. �f 7 lJ w was the ammmt claimed above ocgmted? (Z dude the`estimated wount of any prospective injury or w Nt _ arks ,- rr,�r �....._..,....... .... ... .., $. New and addresses of witnesses, doctors and oo$pltala. g. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injurys DATE ITEM .�........�. etl Gov. Code See. 910.2 provides Me claim must be signed by the olaimant C Tt3 a (Attorneyor � son czn his beha f." ame Wd- Address of Attorney �s gnatutcs (Addres ; Telephone To. Tolea#= No« rare +rwsre aasFalF * a * iFe N 0 T X C 9 Section fitof the Paml. Cade provides: " ery person Who,, with intent to defraud,, prasentos'Poor 9110"=*e ar for payment. to any state boefi-d or offiaer, or to any 0ounty, city or district board or offioer, authcsrired to allow or pay the saw it any I*lm ar fftu ttlent claim, bila., account, voucher, or WritiM. Ss punishable either by t in. the county ,jail. for a period of not iiar'e U= one y r, by a fisc of not exceeding one thousand ($1#000), or by both such imprisonment 'and fine$ or by iqri.ucn ant in the state prison-, by-a fine, of not exceeding ten thmmd dollars ($10.000, or by both such inprisonment and fine. C., - C L, t om...,.. 451-1 x' CUSTOMER STATE TAX OR EXEMPT NO,CUSTOMER FEDERAL TAX I.D.NO ADV CODE SALESMAN:1.D ORDER TAKEN BY INSTAL Eta 8Y REDEIIAL TAX'3 D.NO, BILL TO { rr f � SOLD TO: I INSURANC,E6 PROOF OF LOSS f l �f�i '„�Its'' r /)�✓j /` j i�a�,t�';i c r INSURANCE CO. POLICY NO: INSURANCE CO. PHONE NO, CLAIM NO. CAUSE& POLICY NAME LOSS LOCATION' AGENT NAME VERIFIED BY AGENT PHONE [TATE OF LOSS DEDUCTIBLE VEHICLE INFORMATION A mom tj 'RECEIVED By t } AUTHORIZATION TO PAY I hereby authorize and empower the above-named Insurance company to pay this invoice In full settlement,sat- w% isfaction and discharge of all foss under the above policy.Upon such payment,all nghts I may have for claim and r demand for loss and damage described above against the above named insurance company shall be'thereby forever discharged. In the event Chat the above named Insurance company does not make timely and/or full s r' payment of this invoice according to its term$,I hereby acee t re' nsfbffity for sich'payment'and agree to pay !U all charges reflected on this invoice to the a0toe named c pony subject to and according to all terms and conditions on this Invoice. fr ` TERMS 31MAM&Az } ) )CUSTOMER'St SIGNATURE' / # Al- S OFFICE,OF THE COUNTYCOUNSEL SILVANO`B.MARCHESI COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY of CONTRA COSTA Administration Building .` 651 Pine Street, 91h Floor SHARON L. ANDERSON w;s f� - _," CHIEF ASSISTANT Martinez, California 94553-1229 GREGORY C. HARVEY (925) 335-1800 fl`+ r;a�n'w VALERIE. RANCHE (925) 646-1078 (fax) '� - �� _ w ;� AssisTAws co NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY AND/QR NON-ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIM TO: Nick Magic 945 Dewing Avenue,No. A Lafayette, CA 94549 RE: CLAIM OF: Nick.Magic Please Take Notice as Follows: The claim you presented against the County of Contra Costa or District governed by the Board of Supervisors fails to comply substantially with the requirements of California Government Code Section 910 and 910.2, or is otherwise insufficient for the reasons checked below: [x] 1. The claim fails to state the name and post office address of the claimant. [x] 2. The claim fails to state the post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent. [ ] 3. The claim fails to state the date,place or other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted. j ] 4. The claim fails to state the name(s) of the public employee(s) causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known. [ ] 5. The claim fails to state whether the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000). If the claim totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000),the claim fails to state the amount claimed as of the date of presentation, the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage or loss so far as known, or the basis of computation of the amount claimed. If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000),the claim fails to state whether jurisdiction over the claim would rest in municipal or superior court. Page 1 Nick Magic Re: Claire Page 2 [x] 6. The claim is not signed by the claimant or by some person on his or her behalf.' [x] 7. Other: A separate claim needs to be made with the City of Lafayette. SILVANO B. MARCHESI COUNTY COUNSEL By: 6"Wsl� Deputy County Counsel CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL (C.C.P.§§ 1012, 1013a,2015.5;Evidence Code§§641,664) I declare that my business address is the County Counsel'sOffice of Contra Costa County,651 Pine Street,Martinez,California 94553;I am a citizen of the United States,over 18 years of age,employed in Contra Costa County,and not a patty to this action. I served a true copy'of this Notice of Insufficiency and/or Nan-acceptance of Claim by placing it in an envelope addressed as shown above,sealed and postage fully prepaid thereon,and thereafter was,deposited this day in the U.S.Mail at Martinez,California. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: March L47,2002,at Martinez,California. 1,6kMzZ44 S t"leen O'Connell' cc: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors(original) Risk Management (NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY OF CLAIM:GOVT.CODE§§910,910.2,920.x,910:$) S:\TORT\RISK-MGT\CLAIMS\INSUFF\Magic,.wpd Page 2 '' «. s 4 _ .:,a,.i ...w...`:• ....a.a` ..at "..ni�uL..,.a_ iwl.,..,...t .".+ta.uANg�t• g'jF„''34 4 CwU MMM Claim tot � !' iAiiV+rr - rsl.ating to causes Of" acticm for death Or ftp" injury to person or to Per or ClA or Ring APs and Uhich acme of 'ar° be `c a 3x, SS O conal � y the 100th day 'ate the accrua3. of` the cause of must be presented net fats .C1a3ms relates des %viv aatir� for depth or for '�, wrRy to l�cn action. ,, 3n3g acid uticgl 94ww on or a�`ter'" January' or to Isonal property 1988 must be presented not latAr than tS�X months f acct� be pr sept t 9 � other` ca us action. Maim relating to any Cama of action. (Govt. Coder Sg5,1..2.) meter than € Y after the a0cr of � at its office iso." .� be tiled with the cl� cf the board of���� CA 94553• claimAt r�istrration D�1Idin8: 51 1�acm 1,C6, C�y , . claim i . agent a di:slritat ao ed tk 'd Of SUPWv`iaor , Father tt t the �'crP the �iatr3ct shovl.d ' fined .in the Cote Y r than tape public ,entity, separate claim ant be If the claim Is inst �p��i � filed a 72 at the and of this E. Fraud'. See penalty for fl"4udulent claims: penal Cade See. a +� tc * a ► eoz�eClerk ea. eta } Reserved RE: Claim By MA 13 2002 Against the city o f Comntra C.tasta CLERK BOARD cSUpERVISORS or CONTRA COSTA 00. District) � ?'' R I I I zn rimmu i Cc�utzty in mVPOrt Of - The claimant hereby mak�asclaim and the above-� District 'i.n the s Of $ this claim represents as flaws; .,.. ...�... - --�t - 1114,.. •Mewt °cio �*'t t4 1iv .� �e carr injury VC-Our? ..�, . ere d c a �e or injury' occur'? (Tzolude2. city �'?d�c ty� ? C deti3.e; use � ice " i'f 3.' How dist the or i.��ut"y � cj� � r� otteJU, re ? ) w c d e ew ticules' +c or i an � 'of ty Or district Officers 4. �t coat �e7 .- se_"V=ts car pl g .''t the ink' , s`'a ,y••. �w! txi �i` 4`S a d'iP.k +.�.`.w�`�,.1\5 `w +. •S ,.C•,H,``,• "? d ew+, ,t, 1,-;s•t�'' T\ t 't "a'}..`v:� *. y a'. q,wr1='bt. .A `t t" t +1• �'`e. tt*'^ty` p€.y. .',Ct1+ ,+y 4 •L, 1,i.= �.1 L1y1t c•t elaia�" _ 1 a'�*'" ...q.,at i1t 5 •,'tv41 a•d �• �a 7 tF'S , `�+, 2 0, v. C„ns `Iws�� �''"t*1tr w'r'+Kr n'i1�` t �`tt.,,,.,.r.�`!. � t 'n +t '\ •v "�4,.��ru�'.:+aa'3w.s+,..�i.' _a,.. 5.:..:...s,.i.:..� ;;..r{.e.y.:,.`,ra;..5�....+. ..auw...n;:......id,.•:.. ..rwkuik.,u�. .�L.:.,...x.,1.u6.a4ysU+wr!`ia� 'Wzt arenamesof city or district office i aervsnts or 0 s.causing. the 'die or w� fit, .injuries dry you calm resulted? (Give. fu11 extent of injwies or damages claimed. ' Attach two estimatesFor auto damage. NW r ? How was the am6unt- claimed above computed? L {Include the estimated ammv%t of any prospective in fury or d�xge.}� v ' t' r Mmes and addresses of witnesses, doctors and spitals.. Y F• _.. ��+wrWYrilw.rwYiw w rMYwwP+M�i Po��wr�r+Prrl�w+!'1� 9. List the expenditures you made an account of this secident or injury. ' DATE ITEM AMD= Gorr. Code Sec. 910.2 P rrcvides "The cletim mit be signed by the claimant NOTICES a (Attor�tye ); or some son on his behalf." Me and Address of Attorney' Smant r s 24 tur ' Address Telephone No. Telephone 'N©. a: � e , N 0 T I C 9 Section 72 of the Penal Cade provides Mreryy perawn vto,' with intent to defraud i. presents fbr allowanoe ar for pjyment. to any state bodrd or offie+ar, or to any cao ty, city or district board or off it-ex authorized to allow or pay the if,11enu3r*, wry fabs our fmudul ant claim, bill, acoovnt, vcucher, or writ nal is obabl.es either by imgrisomont iri the -co=tY jail for a period ot" not Akre than orae year$ by a fine of not Wmeding one thousand ($I#000), or by bath' such impriaa=ent and fine, or by, impr'iesrment in the state prison, by.a 'i'3 of not exceeding tan thousand dollars 410,x, or by both such impriB0nMent 8nd fine. CA 94S!5;3 CUSTOMER STATE TRX OR ElrEMPr NO CllSlbiwiEii FED!AAI TAX LD.NO ADV.CODE SALESMAN LD. ORDER TAKEN rSY INSTALLED BY FEDERALTAX i.D.40. BILL TO:All& ,/ SOLD TO; o + c� r X10{ . � ., 01 pesn si 014M 4r W �' all� INSURANCE CO. ?UL'IilY fr INSURANCE CO, PHONE NO, _ _. CLAIM NO. CAUSL& POLICY NAME _ _ LOSS -- AGENT NAME JEdlF':�J 31" AGENT PHONE DATE OF LOSS DEDUCTIBLE ,a i t AUTH RIZAMN TO PAY I hereby authorize and empower Me above-namad Insurance company to pay this Inroads in full settlement,est- t ( Isfaction and discharge of all lose under the above policy.Upon such payment.all rights I may have for cialm and 4f demand for loss and damage,described above against the above named Insurance company shall be thereby forever discharged.In this event that.ft above named ineu company does not make timely andlor full / payment of this involoe accor ding to its terms, ha sby a b8ity for soon psryrrnsrtt and agree to Pay , ail charges reflected on this invoice to that 801we named parry subfact to and according to all terms and conditions on this Invoice. TERMS � CLAIM BOARl1► OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA:COSTA COt7i�TTY BOARD ACTION: March 26, 2002 Claim Against the County, or District Governed by } the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and.Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. } notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), given JDX@297� Pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and MAR 0 6 2002 M 915,4.Please note all "Warnings". AMOUNT: $1599.93 COUNTY COUNSEL. MARTINEZ CALIF,' CLAIMANT: Jimmy&Rosemary Webb AT'TORNE'Y': DATE RECEIVED: March 5, 2002 ADDRESS: 1374 Ventura Dr BY DELIVERY TO CLERK.ON: March 5, 2002 Pittsburg,Ca 94565 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Hand Delivered I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. JOHN SWE ar Dated: March 5 2002 By: Deputy II. FROM: County Counsel TO. Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (L), ais claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant.The Board cannot act for 15 days,(Section 910:8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim(Section 9113). O Other: Dated: - _ By: Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator(2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant(Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: ( This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated:, ? JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK, By ` Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6)months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim, See Government Code Section 945.6, You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For Additional Warning,See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVITOF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I'am now, and at all times herein mentioned,have been a citizen of the United States,over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California,postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: `�".t>' (J JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK.By �' � � Deputy Clerk. Claim to r BOARD OF SUMVISOR OF C +TRA, COSTA 'COUNTY A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or ;for injury to person or to per- sonal property or growing craps and which awrue on or before December 31, 1987, must be presented not later, than the 100th day after the accrual, of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or, to personal property or g ming crops and utich accrue on or after January 1 1988,, must be 'presented not later than six months after the accrual of the muse of action. Claims 'relating to any other cause of action mast to presented' not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of 'action. (Govt. Code.' 5911.2.)" B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Hoard of Supervisors at its office in Room 106, County Administratica Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553. C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, 'rather than the County, the rain of the District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims must be filed against each public entity. E. Fraud. 'See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal Code Sec. 72 at the end of this orm. RE Claim By ) Reserved for Clerk's film ! st ) PE# D j MAR 2002 Against the County `of Centra osta' ) ; �. �z !., t he y4f District} 777D1 in )' The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the abovew-named Di tri t in the sum of $ ' 93 and in support of this claim represents as follows:' 1. When did the damage or7 injury occur? (Give exact date: and hour) 2. Where did the a or injurer occur? (Include city and county) 3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details; use-extra paper if required) f� Fro h A--- t-i o n co p f r-o k:, No 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? K0 4-e d6wn r1c) fne O 177er S e ly C_ 0 _e (over' ,�• /rS�C1{/ Gft."C 4rjjM'i:..tY73t1C%Y`J LL 1✓VW1U� vi taduVisr.0 Vi:ci'4rwi w,.. vv. r.w.+ww ... .rrYwrvJ�...� ..... .�.._.p. the damage or" inJury? t Pr 6. what damage or injuries do you claim resulted? Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damag . Cud e)C -0 - r7` do c) . 7 How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury OrLdamp } VU t 8. Names and addresses of Witnesses, °doctors and hospitals. .,..._......... ......_.... ter:,._ _ _ _ _---___. _ 9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury: PATE ITEM Gov. Cade Sec. 910.2 provides': "The claim must be ,,signed by the claimant SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or some pwson on hill behalf." Name and Address of Attorney (Claimant's is Sigmture Address } „z , G% V'S Telephone No. Telephone No. C a es , a * N0TICE Section 72 of the Penal Code provides; 'every person who, with, intent to defraud, presents;for allowance or for payment to any state board officer or to any county, city or district board or officer, authorized to'allow or pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill,' account, voucher, or writing, is punishable either by imprisonment in the county sail for a period of not more than one year, by a fine of not exceeding one thousand ($1tM), or by both such imprisonment and fine, or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,080, or by both such imprisonmentand fine, d CD Q ` • i i O � Z ;irk '+5" y j _ m co co as Cly p '0 N � irNv m w rim-'' O hC✓ Z co tat p T, n � -n csi o oco [ tD �o tom" ' ca a �' N goo o cn tX3 o' o o �, 55 co �l 4 (D C o o 0 �' o -0 -moi M -•c °y �' cn Ji> to _ m ro 3 < a p o x 3 0 �? n 00 0 m ns rn � 00 tCl ®r rb' d 1�7 O +� > 1 m m = {c P D ; v 'mr+ M W KR 17"1 ' O o F3 o �, C, X G) = m : � m CD ,� COD co CL ro CD r-------------------------- - 3* I co t I cr' to N` �d1 � ' t C, 3m I en o i p I w t ,. � I � is t i Oi co sn t7 I m` +C• S i; " �'; 10 0M I msy i`� m j y0co 1 t N 03 I t c -4 OCD -.0' m' ! i -+ -� 00 O w (n n C7 p a 1 I N c`iD c`au f�i� cr G7 O O O 0 CO to CD its. 'O C7 O :0 O OI ! W W W O O O O O O Z I 1 ...... -------------------- V CLAIM , BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD ACTION: March 26,2002 _- Claim Against the County, or District Governed by ) the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action: All Sectionreferences are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes: ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), given Pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and r 915.4. Please mote all"Warnings". AMOUNT': $317.55 MAR U 6 2002 rm COUNTY CLAIMANT: Rhoder ca Torres MARTINEZ CALIF. ATTORNEY: DATE RECEIVED: March 5, 2002 ADDRESS: P.O. Box 20321 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON March 5.2002 El Sobrante,CA 94820 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Hand Delivered I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel' Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. JOHN SWEET r ' Dated: March 5 2002 By: Deputy 7 II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( `his claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.$) ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to`apply'for leave to present a late claim(Section 911.3) O Other: Dated: 7 By: Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator(2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant(Section 911.3): IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: ( This Claim is rejected in full. O Other: I certify that this is a-true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its mt4utes for this date. na Dated:81�L l JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK, By °r J ,Deputy Clerk WARNING(Gov. cede section 913) Subject to certain exceptions,you have only six(6)months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter.'"If you,want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For Additional Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare,under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned,have been a citizen of the United States,over age'1$; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez,California,postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant addressed to the claimant as shown above. � 3 ` Dated:e t JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK By r' _ Deputy Clerk Claim to: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INSTRUCTIONS TO CLA MANT A. Claims relating to causes of action for Beath or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or before''December 31, 1987, must be presented not later than $day after the accrual of the:cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person. or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or after January 1, 1988,must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action;must be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. ('Govt. Code §911.2.) B. Claims must be filed with the Clem of theotd t1ti] er' ior5 Ott its office in ItOon 1[1+6,; County Administrtti€tn Building;651 Tina Stmt,?2ai'tine , A 943. C. If Claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against more than one public entity,separate claims must be filed against each public entity. E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims. Penal Code Sec. 72 at the end of this form. RE: Claim by ) Reserved for Clerk's Filing Stamp Wt N act r.—:carr RECEIVED_ Against the County of Contra Costa MAR 5;2002 or District CLEfIK SOARp tJF SllPERVIS4Fi8 CONTRACt?SYAGO. (Fill in`Maine) The undersigned claimant hereby makes claire against the County of Contra Costa or the above named District in the sum of S and in support of this claim represents as follows: 1. When did;the damage or injury occur? (Give exact nate and Hour) --------------LI,24_ ° ! - ,r_ _ _�``-`_ �_-'_ �: -- ,''----- - - --- --- 2. Where dill the damage or injury occur:' (Include city and County) 3. flow did the damage Or injury occur. (Give full details.use extra paper if required • � a4t '0111 .�, w n u b c►d o .. h- d,s..G d � �.e __ - 4-- What particular act ss un°oe ot} r d� s nct o ice s, or employees caused the injury or damage? ,�,•�, � w�`� w�t-s ��. � � ,,4-,t-st... rte-. Over + RV-4- A cam_ d a t�ss r` &Ica,. ,•v11-). -aug par watnuosudntt tans gloq nq 10 `( 0€30`0IS } slriiap pursnoqj ual°uipann lou Io amj r nq;uosud ams aq; ui ;uamuosuduti nq 10-'aug pur 2uamuosuduti %ans q;oq nq 10 ( DOWI ) uritop pursnoq; auo tuipaana ioa,to auU r nq °lran auo urt{; a couc lou;o pouad r!.toj i f 4unw aq; uT ;uatuuosudrttt nq latp aigvgsiund'si i2u tsia 10`1ag3nt)e llunu33r °iiiq;utiria uainpnul;to asirj nuv `auinuafl it awrs aqj nrd 10 .,Aoile oa pa lotpnr latlzwo 40 plrflq I-agIStp 10uta .�Junoa nue Q;10`1a3wa 1a plrflq a;r;S :lttr aI Zlat3lArd'1Uj.t0 aJ1Yr.wuv xo�quaswd°pnrl�ap o;;ua;ai tPpA rOgm uc sad' 1at , :sapr�a1d apo 1rua j aqj}o%L uar Sar 3Didu -oK auogdaiay 79,Y v 'ori anaticiaiaZ (ssaappF) alntruntS s,;uruiiri] ... rid+ • }��`-r' t;)IUoUv;a ssa pp Pe auras K KIn s-tq'uo uosaad atuos-�q 1a (-taujou�)' :OL S30I.I.Oh (L'v.�CS turtumP 4q1 .q.Pau°is aq;snui utirlo aqL,; :sopiAoid �`OI6 aaS apo 'no0 14:1UI'lt' Iti3.LI 3.L�(I :.ilnfttt 1a;napi33r sit; to;ano33r uo apru non saxn;tpuadxa alp Isis - - - - - --- - -�ft?1--------- ------------------------------------ 4 " 3Si s"v C14` "'t •sie;tdsoq pur•sja23op•sassaIWAk JO sassa.Ippr Pur salsa. g { a�euzep za.isntuc a�t} adsaid.:iue a lunom�paleuttisa a�apnlaeq) 4pa;ndwo-i iu-nowr}attttria'anagr air;Se .uag ------------------- - - r F ` ("aaevuwp olive.... aaj saleuiC�so-ah+1 t[aellV -pauxluta saneutep eo sogoun}o luaiza TV attg) opal Rsa f i3-non,op saunfut 10 satrutep rqb -9 _ _ - - Zunfui,to agnutrp aq;2utsne3 saanoidata 10 Sltmuas;`slaaWo;3u;s p 10 wnoa Ifl sameu aqx a-m it S MiL Rhoderica A. Torres March 5,:2002 Response to #3 On November 26, 2002 approximately between 7.40-8:00 p.m.., I was driving on San Pablo Dam Road (Camino Pablo)coming from Orinda going towards Et Sobrante (It was approximately 2-3 mites away from.El obrante.) Considering the oncoming traffic,poor visibility due to obscure night and 3-4 cars ahead and behind me, it was very difficult to see the body of the dead deer at the center of the road. 'Considering the aforementioned circumstances, I was unable to avoid running over the dead body of the deer. As a result, it caused property damage? to my car in which the transmission oil pan and transmission ail pipe must be replaced immediately otherwise the ear was not drivable: My mechanic, Auto Pro, assessed the damage and explained to me that there was fur and blood underneath my car. i 000001300003 o ,.w ui 0 �Q Z a 2 Z ja �Z Z Z x'y' q.,n' �x tFaD wa ;� 40 d � S� w-`�+' S 2= ¢ `"o d ^ �„, " "� U= ,;. ,n V v a.- v Ca s'� �='¢m and wd Z5 t'. o m L S, m°r C a p qm c[ ilk .c 7?7tl�jyj Cc woz- V• z z ftS{� Z O CD YD v"py O.:v Z LY C 00 071 �or'a Cq a Lo ' C7' •s O .� LAJ nAl► ' z a E]§z UA �, •� -< « U 4 V a Account NurrVier Cnrdk Line CoWk or Ctadk Avalfatde Wye ccCyogr Cdcel Dab Tdaf Mlnlmum Pe Du* PoEkes Ckb - 'r7 $18,200.00 $16,262.`63 31 12/18/01 $58.00 01/17/02 Postlnp Trarwactlon Reference Card Category Transoottons DECEMBER 2001 STATEMENT Charges Credits(CFS Date : Data dumber Type 5URCHASES Aim► ADJUSTMENTS 11/23 11/21 5268 MC C BURLINGTON COA00002980 CERRITOS CA 203.20: 11/24 11/22 3273 MC C JONG GA HOUSE : OAKLAND CA 43.10 11/26 11/23 9241 MC C LECHTERS H97S CONCORDCA 8.77 11/26 11/23 5957 MC C KAY-BEE TOYS 00007146 CONCORD CA 10.79 11/26 11/23 1238 MC C PAYLESSSHOESOU00066951 CONCORD CA 21 .04 11/26 11/23 3270 MC C TOYS R U5 N5804 RICHMOND CA 43. 19 11/26 11/23 1897 MC C TOYS R US #5804 RICHMOND CA 70.57 12/01 11/29 2018 MC C SHELL NO.27425032706 ORINDA CA 13.55 12/03 11/30 0057 MC C AUTO PRO iINC NO 2 OAKLAND CA 317.55 `< 12/04 12/02 2012 MC C SHELL NO.27425032706 ORINDA CA 15.04 12/07 12/05 5019 :,MC C SHELL NO.20400720817 ALAMEDA CA 10.46 12/07 12/05 1726 .MC C USPS 0555110140 ALAMEDA CA 25.69: 12/07 12/05 6005 'MC C OLD NAVY'' OUTLET 7!2860 SAN LEANDRO CA 42.00 12/08 12/07 0507 MC C RUMORS SAN FRANCISCOCA 12.77 12/08 12/07 5774 MC C GOLDEN RAINBOW SAN FRANCISCOCA 19.49 12/10 12/07 0056 MC C LALI INTERNATIONAL CO. SAN FRANCISCOCA 34.64 12/10 12/07 4232 MC C GOLDEN STATE TRADING 415-6214653 CA 38.05' 12/10 12/08 5635 MC C ALBERTSONS 7010 RICHMOND CA 16.56' IMPORTANT !VEINS ENJOY THE SEASON AND THE CONVENIENCE THE ENCLOSED CHECKS HAVE TO OFFER-- OR CONTACT US AT WWW.MBNACASH.COM OR 1-888-5153308. YOU ARE A VALUED CUSTOMER. WE WANT TOMAKESURE YOU ARE AWARE THAT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED YOUR PAYMENT. PLEASE SEND THE AMOUNT DUE TODAY. IF IT HAS BEEN MAILED, 'THANK YOU.. MBNA StOPSAFE--THE SAFEST WAY TO SHOP ONLINE. GO TO WWW.MBNASHOPSAFE.COM. $4,111101ARY©P Tr4ANS AC71ONS T'OT'AL MINA U1N PAYAfgN7 DUE Previous Balance (•)payments {+1 Cash (+)Purchases and (+ Padodir Rata {4)Transaction Fee {..)New Balance and CradlEs Advances AdJustmarm FINANCE CIiANOES FlIIANC6 CtIATt9LS Total Past Due Amount................. $15.00 $781.07 $'u,00 ¢0.00 Current Payment-— .......L. $43.00' $1,140.21 $16.09 $0.00 $2,937.37 Tadd Minimum Payment Due........ .....I... ........ $56.00 FINANCE CHARGE SCHEDULE Cc"epondIng Balance FOR YOUR SATISFACTION,EVERY HOUR,EVERYDAY Category Periodic Rata Annual subject to - For Customer Satistaction and up t0 Nie minute automated information ndudng, Percentage bate Fin mce Charge balance,available credit,payments reosived,payments due,due date, ayawl Cash Advances address informellot,awrequest0vi testatenwhis,caltI 9556: A. BALANCE TRANSFERS, CHECKS.0.035534%DLV 12.97% $0.00 - For TDD(Telecommunication Device for MeDeal)assistance, B. ATM, BANK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.035534%OLY 12.97% $0.00 call 1-80€3-346-3178. - Mal payments to:MBNA AMERICA,P.O.BOX 15137,WILMINGTON,DE C. PURCHASES_ . . . . . . . . . . .,. . . , . . .'0.035534%DLY 12.97% $1,460.25 1988MI37. , - Bung fights are preserved only try written inquiry. Mai billing inquiries,using form on the and mer inquiries to: FOR THIS SILLfiVG PERIOD: AMERICA P.O_Bt33(1�(�,lAtl l_MII+JCTON DF ANNUAL PEEICENTAOE RATE.-__.. 12.97% . (inrkudes PwWia Rats and Tarnasotrcrr lire€lnsnoe Charges.) 5960 04Z Y 6 L N 0200 0000 00 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION. 5401 2609 7703 3707 PAGE'1 OF "2 r.,.. r, APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALIFORNIA BOARD ACTION Mar 26,2002' Application to File Late Claim ) NOTICE TO APPLICANT Against the County,Routing ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your Endorsements, and Board Action. ) notice of the action taken on your application by (All Section References are to } the Board of Supervisors(Paragraph III,below), California Government Code.l ) iv pursuant to,Government Code Sections 911.8 and- CIE lease note the"WARNING"below. 9 Claimant: Domenick Clemente R!AR 4 6 2002 Attorney: COUNTY COUNSEL Address: 6900 Johnston Rd Pleasanton;��11 ft1F_ Amount: $50,000 By delivery to Clerk on March 5,2002 Date Received March 5,2002 By mail,postmarked on March 4 2002 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above noted Application to Fil 1 ir. DATED: March 5,2002 JOHN SWEETEN, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk II. FROM: ` County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) The Board should grant this Application to File Late Claim(Section 911.6): ( The Board should deny this Application to File Late Claim(Section 911.6): DATED: SILVANO MARCHESI,County Counsel, Bye Deputy III. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present (Check one'only) ( ) This Application is granted(Section 911.6). This Application to File Late Claim is denied(Section 911,6) I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Ordp"ntered in its minute for this date. DATE. ' . " JOHNSWEETEN, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk WARNING(Gov. Code§911.8) If you wish to file a court action on this matter, you must first petition the appropriate court for an order relieving you from the provisions of Government Code Section'945.4"(claims presentation requirement). See Government Code Section 946.6. Such petition must be filed with the court within six (6)months from the date your application for leave to present a late claim was denied. You may seek the advise of any attorney of your choice in connection with this matter.If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. IV. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (l) County Counsel (2) County Administrator Attached are copies of the above Application.. We notified the applicant of the Board's action on this Application by mailing a copy of this document, and a memo thereof has been filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Claim in accordance with Section 29703. r DATED , {'� <� JOHNSWEETEN, Clerk,By n r 'l Deputy Clerk V. FROM: (1) County Counsel (2)County Administrator TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Received copies of this Application and Board Order. DATED: County Counsel,By County Administrator, By APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM The Board of Supervisors John Sweeten Contra Clerk of the Board and County Administration BuildingCounty Administrator �/'''+, " 651 Fine Street,Room 106 `�-'o f (925}335-#500 Martinez,California 94553-..1293 County: John Gioia,1st District Gayle B.tlilkema,2nd District = , Donna Garber,arc!District Mark DeSaulnier,4th District o m s Federal D.Glover,5th District C R1 ED " r y cbctr MAR 5 2002 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA rlr% TO: Qomenick S. Clemente 6900 Johnston Road Pleasanton, CA 94588 NOTICE TO CLAIMANT (Of Late-Filed Claim) (Government Code Section 911.3) The claim you presented to the Board of Supervisors of Contra;Costa County, California, as governingbody of the County of Contra Costa on September"19, 2001, has been reviewed by County Counsel and is being returned to you herewith because: X Your claim for an injury to person or personal property was not presented within six months of the event or occurrence as required by law. (See Government Code sections 901 and 911.2) _ Your claim relating to a cause of action other than injury to person, personal property or growing crops was not presented within one year after the event or occurrence as required by law. (See Government Code sections 901 and 911.2) " Because the claim was not presented within the time allowed by law, no action was taken on the claim. Your only recourse at this time is to apply without delay for leave to present a late claim. (See Government Code sections 911.4 to 912.2 and 946.0) Under some circumstances leave to present a late claim will be granted. (See Government Code section 911.6) Claim to: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANT A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or before December 31, 1987, must be presented not later than the I OO h day after the accrual ofthe cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or after January 1, 1988, must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presentednot later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Gov't Code 911.2.) B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,Martinez, CA 94553. C. If claim is against a district`governed by the Board of Supervisors,rather than the County,the nam of the District should be filled in. D. If the claire is against more than one public entity, separate claims must be filed against each public entity. E. gaud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal'Code Sec. 72 at the end of this form. RE: Claim By Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp �u t •-•.�..` RECEIVED Against the County of Contra Costa or ) > FEB 1 9 2002 District) (Fill in name) CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named district in the sum of$ and in support of this claim represents as follows:' 1. When did the damage or injury occur?(Give exact date and hour) 2. 'Where did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county) Ce S; ito.,74 3. How did the damage or injury occur?(Give full details;use extra paper if required) PO C (�.� T, (/r"',�YL!Cit�... (..:at�C✓ V t C3�2 T�fl�? �./ .,�.�3�i �t "7��'�r +�L�,1''�'t lg'�,. �' � "'l (C P'�s�'S� �r ,/"'ee.• fit..''ya� w;-a /fi-'S �-` �t��.. �� J�✓` `� e'N,,; ` ', ��5 ..J to m sKv,,,..s• 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants, or employees caused he injury or damage? , t BSc tr `- 11re,-e' r 77� 1-Z-A"e"-d � �--- 5. What are the names/of county or district 0 vers, servants, or employees causing the damage or injury? frc cup f afG 6 f f2C .. t!t�7C cf'.firr> IOWWYJ 19? 6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted?(Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage.) r /fief�t r f 't V'r:c2 cw i C z 1 7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage.) /2 s 8. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors, and hospitals; cw- ,� M9 a 9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury. DAME l AM-QUNT `ra r art c 'S t �t �rltw . } Gov. Code Sec. 910.2 provides"The claim must be } signed by the claimant or by some person on his'behalf" SEM NOTICES T Art m Name and Address of Attorney ) (CI#Kiant's Signature) s )3g (Address) Telephone No. )Telephone No, NOTICE Section 72 of the°Penal Code provides: Every person who,with intent to defraud,presents for allowance or the payment to any state board or officer,or to any county,city,or district board or officer,authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine,any false or fraudulent claim,bill,account, voucher,or writing,is punishable either by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year,by a fine of not exceeding one thousand(s 1,000),or by both such imprisonment and fine,or by imprisonment in the state prison,by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars($10,000),or by both such imprisonment and fine. 1 IN PRO PER .. n DOMNCK S. 3 6900 JOHNSTON ROAD CLEMENTE PLEASANTON, CA 94588 P tC#i,,;- ;•• ,. :,t, 7 5.; 925-248-4505 CLERK, U.� g tuT' Ct3tlRT N9{THE NDi TF�t t W CALIF 000 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN` DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 13 DOMENICK S. CLEMENTE, } Case No. : No. C01-4184 'PJH 15 } Plaintiff, ? PLAINTIFF DOMENICK S. CLEMENTE 17 } APPLICATION TO PRESENT A LATE VS. ) GOVERNMENT TORT CLAIM AGAINST 13 } THE COUNTIES OF ALAMEDA, CONTRA COSTA, LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION, ET. AL., DOES 1- } SAN FRANCISCO, SANTA CLARA AND A 21 ) DECLARATION STATEMENT OF FACTS 30, INCLUSIVE, ) 23 ) PURSUANT TO: GOV. CODE 911.4 (a) Defendant 25 } 27 PLAINTIFF, REQUEST TO THIS COURT FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT 'A 29 LATE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF IGNORANCE OF THE FACTS THROUGH 31 SELF-REPRESENTATION. PLAINTIFF, PREVIOUSLY RETAINED THREE LAW FIRMS TO SUPPORT' 33 THIS CAUSE OF ACTION THAT `RELATES BACK" TO A FALSE IMPLICATION FOR KIDNAPPING 35 A CHILD IN DUBLIN, CA. PLAINTIFF, BELIEVES THAT THE KIDNAPPING I'S A UNSOLVED 37 CASE TO DATE'. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF BELIEVES THAT THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF 39 INVESTIGATION HAS INTERFERED WITHPLAINTIFF` S ATTEMPTS TO VINDICATE HIMSELF IN 41 A COURT OF LAW. FURTHERMORE, PLAINTIFF, ALLEGES THAT HIS SPOUSE AND FAMILY WERE 43 QUESTIONED ABOUT PLAINTIFF'S HISTORY BY THE AUTHORITIES. PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY OF 45 THIS ALLEDGED' INVESTIGATION WAS BY ACCIDENT ON JAN. 28,1994. PURSUANT FRCP 15(C) (2) 47 49 PLAINTIFF'S LATE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CLAIM 1 DECLARATION OF:. FACTS 3 5 1; PLAINTIFF, ALLEGES THAT HE WAS NEVER'DETAINED OR QUESTIONED BY ANY 7 LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FOR ANY INVOLVEMENT FOR A CRIME. PLAINTIFF, BELIEVES THAT HE 9 HAS SUFFERED ENOUGH FOR THE MALICE" AND =FALSE IMPLICATION OF A CRIME HE NEVER 11 COMMITED. PLAINTIFF, TRULY BELIEVES THAT HE HAS PRODUCED A PAPER TRAIL OF FACTS THAT 13REFLECT A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DID TAKE PLACE IN DUBLIN, CA. INVOLVING HIS FAMILY 15 IN THE FALL OF 1993-94. PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS THAT HE HAS FILED THE DOCUMENTATION WITHIN 17 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ON DEC. 5, 2001. 19 2.' PLAINTIFF, 'PREVIOUSLY FILED A STATE GOVERNMENT CLAIM IN 1998, REFERENCING 21 THIS KIDNAPPING ALLIGATION AND TRULY BELIEVED THAT A PROFESSOR FROM SAN FRANCISCO 23 STATE UNIVERSITY AND A SFPD OFFICER., NOW ACTING ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE IN SAN 25 FRANCISCO, WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RECKLESS MALICE. FURTHERMORE,, PLAINTIFF BELIEVES 27 THAT THE SAME SFSU PROFESSOR HARASSED PLAINTIFF AT HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT, APPLIED 29 MATERIALS, FOR THE MURDER OF A EMPLOYEE IN 1995. PLAINTIFF, 'ALLEGES THAT HE RETAINED ' 31 THREE LAW FIRMS THAT WERE TOLD BY AN UNKNOWN ENITITY TO DISMISS THEIR'SERVICES, 33 >> BECAUSE THE KIDNAPPING CASE IS UNSOLVED AND PLAINTIFF' S SPOUSE AND FAMILY COOPERATED' 35 '' WITH THE AUTHORITIES DURING THE 1993-94 INVESTIGATION. PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS THAT HE IS ' 37 NOW AWARE OF THE TRUE DEFENDANT'S WHO CREATED THIS POI'SONIOUS TREE OF DEFAMATION AND 39 SLANDEOUS IMPLICATION. 41 3. PLAINTIFF, WAS EMPLOYED BY THE GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION UNDER CONTRACT 43 FROM A THE COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN IDAHO, TWIN FALLS, IDAHO FROM 1985-89. PLAINTIFF, WAS 45 TERMINATED FROM THAT EMPLOYMENT FOR EXPOSING PRODUCT FRAUD THAT THE GENERAL MOTORS 47 CORP. AND ITS 'AFFILLIATED NEW VEHICLE DEALSHIPS IN THE BAY AREA GENERATED. PLAINTIFF, 49 ALLEGES THAT A EMPLOYEE FROM'GENERAL MOTORS IMPLICATED' PLAINTIFF FOR KIDNAPPING SO AS TO DESTROY PLAINTIFF'S ABILITY TO TESTIFY AS` A EXPERT WITNESS AGAINST GM PRODUCTS. PLAINTIFF'S LATE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CLAIM W 1 PLAINTIFF, WAS TERMINATED FROM GENERAL MOTORS TRAINING CENTER IN SEPT. 19$9 ANIS THE 3- CHILD DISAPPEARED IN DUBLIN, CA. IN 1989. PLAINTIFF, WAS WORKING UNDER CONTRACT WITH 5 BAY AREA LAW FIRMS THROUGH THE TECHNICAL ADVISORYSERVICE FOR ATTORNEYS IN BLUE BELL, 7 PA. PLAINTIFF'S TRAINING AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE PROVED VERY SUCCESSFUL FOR THESE'- 9 LAW FIRiyIS. FURTHER.EMORE, CREATING A CLIMATE WITHIN THE BAY AREA GM DEALER.. GROUP THAT 11 '' REFLECTED HOSTILE BEHAVIOR TOWARDS PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF, TRULY BELIEVES THAT GENERAL 13 MOTORS CORPORATION'EMPLOYEES- ATTEMPTED TO USE A KIDNAPPING CHARGE TO DESTROY 15 " PLAINTIFF' S SOCIAL CHARACTER AND COURTROOM CREDITABILITY AS A EXPERT`WITNESS, 17 ULTIMATILY DESTROYING PLAINTIFF' S MARRIAGE AND FAMILY BONDS. 19 4. PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS THAT THE FBI COVERED UP THIS MALICE AND HAS TO DATE 21 SUSPRESSED PLAINTIFF'S ABILITY TO EXPOSE THIS OUTRAGEOUS MORAL INJUSTICE. PLAINTIFF, 23' ASSERTS THAT HIS LAST OPPORTUNITYTOREMAIN GAINFULLY EMPLOYED WAS DESTROYED WITHIN 25 1 SIX MONTHS OF HIRE, BY THIS' SLANDOUS PATH OF CHARACTER ASSISSNAT'ION AND FURTHERMORE 27 VIOLATING PLAINTIFF'S CIVIL FRIGHTS AT THE WORKPLACE FOR THE FOURTH TIME IN TEN YEARS. 29 PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS THAT HIS,WRONGFUL TERMINATION AT LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION ON JAN. 31 3, 2001 AND THE MANNER IN WHICH HE WAS 'TERMINATED AND HARASSED, LINE UP WITH THIS 33 PATH OF PERSONAL DENIGRATION. PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS THAT THE BAY AREA AUTHORITIES 35 SUPPORTED THREE MAJOR WORLDWIDE'CORPORATIONS, BY COVERING UP THIS EMPLOYMENT 37 HARASSMENT AND FALSE IMPLICATION. 39 5. PLAINTIFF, HAS LOST HIS ABILITY TO REMAIN EMPLOYED WITHIN A HARASSMENT 41 ` FREE WORKPLACE AND WILL, ALWAYS BE MONITORED BY THE AUTHORITIES UNTIL THE CHILD IS 43 FOUND. PLAINTIFF, HAS PROVED THAT THE FAMILY AND MOTHER OF "THAT `MISSING CHILD HAS 45 STALKED PLAINTIFF SINCE THE IMPLICATION. PLAINTIFF, HAS PROVED THAT THIS AFOREMENTION 47' STATEMENT IS TRUE, ON FEB. 2, 2001 IN THE TOWN OF DANVILLE,'' THE DANVILLE POLICE WERE 49 DIRECTED BY A UNKNOWN ENTITIY TO APPREHEND PLAINTIFF ON ROUTE HOME USING THE EXCUSE OF A CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE TO DETAIN PLAINTIFF SO AS TO PERFORM A VEHICLE SEARCH PLAINTIFF'S LATE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CLAIM s 1 WITHOUT A WARRANT. WHEREFORE, VIOLATING PLAINTIFF'S FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. 3 PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS THAT DO TO THAT DETAINMENT HE WAS SUBJECT TO A D.U.I. HARASSMENT' 5 AND ARRESTED. WHEREFORE, PROVIDING THE AUTHORITIES WITH THE: OPPORTUNITY TO SEARCH 7 PLAINTIFFS VEHICLE. PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS THAT HE HAS NEVER HAD A CRIMINAL RECORD' OR A 9 CONCERN WITH THE AUTHORITIES REGARDING ANY NATURE, UNTIL THIS FALSE IMPLICATION FOR 11 CHILD ENDANGERMENT AND HARASSMENT BY THE DANVILLE' POLICE. FURTHERMORE, PLAINTIFF 13 TRULY BELIEVES THAT THE EBI INFLUENCED PLAINTIFF'S CRIMINAL ATTORNEY TO SUBMIT 15 PLAINTIFF TO A GUILTY PLEA AND SETFORTH THE APPEAL PROCESS REGARDING THE ILLICIT 17 DETAINMENT OF PLAINTIFF FOR THE ABSENCE OF A LICENSE PLATE ON HIS NEW TRUCK IN 19 DANVILLE` ON THE EVENING OF FEB. 2, 2001. 21 PLAINIFF, SUBMITS THIS% LATE CLAIM FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONVINCE THIS 23 COURT AND THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTY TO ALLOW `PLAINTIFF' TO PROCEED WITH THE VIDICATION 25 OF HIS LEGAL RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.' PLAINTIFF, PRAYS TO THIS 27 ' COUNTY GO7VERN4ENT TO SUSTAIN THIS REQUEST TO SECURE HIS CIVIL RIGHTS AND MAINTAIN A 29 LIFE OF FREEDOM FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT TYRANNY AND CORPORATE ASSAULT. 31 33 35 ' 37 Respectfully, 39 DATED: Jan. 2, 2002 Damenick S. Clemente 41 Plaintiff, r 43 Signed c._4 45 4? 49 PLAINTIFF'S LATE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CLAIM 3 t 1 IN PRO PER DOMENICK S. CLEMENTE 1 _ 3 6900 JOHNSTON ROAD pf#` PLEASANTON, CA 94588L . : 5 925-248-4505 +ru rF�R�u,5, GtSl1' ! r+rrct F is jf? 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11. 13 DOMENICK S. CLEMENTE, ) Case No. COI-4184 P,JH 15 )' Plaintiff, j PLAINTIFF DOMENICK'S. CLEMENTE 17 " ) APPLICATION TO PRESENT A LATE VS. j GOVERNMENT TORT CLAIM AND A 19 j'' DECLARATION STATEMENT OF FACTS LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION, ET.. AL., DOES 1- j 21 j PURSUANT TO: GOV. CODE $'911.4 30, INCLUSIVE, 23 ) Defendants j 25 27 29 31 PLAINTIFF, REQUEST TO THIS COURTFOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT A LATE 33 GOVERNMENT CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF A CONTINUATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND PERSONAL ABUSE BY 35 BAY AREA AUTHORITIES AND CORPORATE AGGRESSION. PLAINTIFF, PREVIOUSLY RETAINED THREE 37 LAW FIRMS TO SUPPORT THIS CAUSE OF ACTION THAT "RELATES BACK" TO A FALSE IMPLICATION 39 FOR KIDNAPPING A CHILD IN DUBLIN, CA. Ft3RSUANT FRCP 15'(C) (2) . PLAINTIFF, BELIEVES 41 THAT THE KIDNAPPING IS 'A UNSOLVED CASE TO DATE. 54MEREFORE, 'PLAINTIFF BELIEVES THAT 43 THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HAVE INTERFERED WITH 45 PLAINTIF'F'S ATTEMPTS TO VINDICATE HIMSELF IN A COURT OF LAW. FURTHERMORE, PLAINTIFF, 47 ' ALLEGES THAT HIS SPOUSE AND FAMILY WERE QUESTIONED ABOUT PLAINTIFF'S HISTORY BY THE 49 AUTHORITIES. PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY OF THIS ALLEDGED INVESTIGATION WAS BY ACCIDENT ON JAN. 28,1994 IN THE TOWN OF DUBLIN. PLAINTIFF'S LATE GOVERNMENT CLAIM 1 s DECLARATION OF FACTS 3 1. PLAINTIFF, ALLEGESTHAT HE WAS NEVER DETAINED OR QUESTIONED BY ANY LAW 5 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FOR ANY INVOLVEMENT FOR A CRIME. PLAINTIFF, BELIEVES THAT HE HAS 7 SUFFERED'ENOUGH FOR THE MALICE AND FALSE IMPLICATION OF A CRIME HE NEVER COMMITED. 9 PLAINTIFF, TRULY BELIEVES THAT HE HAS PRODUCED A PAPER TRAIL OF FACTS THAT REFLECT A' 11 ". CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DID TAKE PLACE IN DUBLIN, CA. INVOLVING HIS FAMILY IN THE FAL ' 13 OF 1993-94. PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS THAT HE HAS FILED THE DOCUMENTATION WITHIN THE UNITED 15 STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ON DEC. 5, 2001. 17 2. PLAINTIFF, PREVIOUSLY FILED ;A STATE GOVERNMENT CLAIM IN 1998, REFERENCING THIS 19 KIDNAPPING ALLIGATION AND TRULY BELIEVED THAT A PROFESSOR FROM SAN FRANCISCO STATE 21 ' UNIVERSITY AND A SFPD OFFICER, NOW ACTING ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE IN SAN'FRANCISCO,' 23 WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RECKLESS MALICE. FURTHERMORE, ,PLAINTIFF BELIEVES THAT THE 25 SAME SFSU PROFESSOR HARASSED PLAINTIFF AT HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT, APPLIED:MATERIALS, 27 FOR THE MURDER OF A EMPLOYEE IN 1995. PLAINTIFF, ALLEGES THAT THREE LAW FIRMS THAT 29 WERE TOLD BY AN UNKNOWN'ENITITY TO DISMISS THEIR SERVICES, BECAUSE THE KIDNAPPING 31 CASE IS UNSOLVED AND PLAINTIFF'S SPOUSE AND 'FAMILY COOPERATED WITH THE AUTHORITIES 33 DURING THE 1993-94 INVESTIGATION. PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS THAT HE IS NOW AWARE OF THE TR 35 DEFENDANT'S WHO CREATED THIS POISONIOUS TREE OF DEFAMATION AND SLANDEOUS IMPLICATION. 37 3. PLAINTIFF, WAS EMPLOYED BY THE GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION UNDER CONTRACT FROM 39 THE COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN'' IDAHO, TWIN FALLS, IDAHO FROM '1985-89. PLAINTIFF, WAS 41 TERMINATED FROM THAT EMPLOYMENT FOR EXPOSING PRODUCT FRAUD THAT THE GENERAL MOTORS 43 CORPORATION AND ITS AFFILLIATED NEW VEHICLE DEALSHIPS IN THE BAY AREA GENERATED. 45 PLAINTIFF, ALLEGES'THAT' A EMPLOYEE FROM GENERAL MOTORS IMPLICATED PLAINTIFF FOR 47 KIDNAPPING SO AS TO DESTROY PLAINTIFF'S ABILITY TO TESTIFY AS A EXPERT WITNESS 49 AGAINST CSS PRODUCTS IN A CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT WITH NORMAN TAYLOR, ESQ.. OF GLENi7ALE. PLAINTIFF'S LATE GOVERNMENT CLAIM° 1 PLAINTIFF', WAS TERMINATED FROM GENERAL MOTORS TRAINING.CENTER IN SEPT. 1989 AND THE 3 CHILD DISAPPEARED IN DUBLIN, CA. IN 1989.` PLAINTIFF, WAS WORKING UNDER CONTRACT WITH. 5 BAY ;AREA"LAW FIRMS THROUGH THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY SERVICE FOR ATTORNEYS IN BLUE BELL, 7 PA. PLAINTIFF'`S TRAINING AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE PROVED VERY SUCCESSFUL FOR THESE 9LAW FIRMS. FURTHEREMORE CREATING A CLIMATE;WITHIN THE BAY AREA GM DEALER GROUP THAT 11 .° REFLECTED HOSTILE BEHAVIOR TOWARDS PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF", TRULY BELIEVES THAT GENERAL ' 13 MOTORS CORPORATION'EMPLOYEES ATTEMPTED TO USE A KIDNAPPING CHARGE TO DESTROY 15 PLAINTIFF' S SOCIAL CHARACTER AND COURTROOM CREDITABILITY AS' A EXPERT WITNESS, 17 ULTIMATILY DESTROYING PLAINTIFF'S MARRIAGE AND FAMILY BONDS. 19 4. PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS THAT THE 'FBI COVERED UP THIS MALICE AND HAS TO DATE 21 '' SUSPRESSED PLAINTIFF'S ABILITY TO EXPOSE THIS OUTRAGEOUS MORAL INJUSTICE. PLAINTIFF, 23 ASSERTS THAT HIS LAST OPPORTUNITY TO REMAIN GAINFULLY EMPLOYED WAS DESTROYED WITHIN 25 SIX MONTH'S OF 'HIRE, BY THIS SLANDOUS PATH OF CHARACTER ASSISSNATION AND FURTHERMORE 27 VIOLATING PLAINTIFF' S CIVIL 'RIGHTS AT THE WORKPLACE FOR THE FOURTH TIME IN TEN YEARS. 29 PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS 'THAT HIS WRONGFUL TERMINATION AT LAM RESEARCH'CORPORATION ON JAN. 31 3, 2001 AND THE MANNER IN WHICH HE WAS TERMINATED AND HARASSED, LINE UP WITH THIS 33 PATH OF PERSONAL DENIGRATION AND SLANDER.. 35 PLAINTIFF,, ASSERTS THAT THE BAY AREA AUTHORITIES SUPPORTED THREE MAJOR 37 WORLDWIDE CORPORATIONS, BY COVERING UP THIS EMPLOYMENT HARASSMENT AND FALSE 39 IMPLICATIONS. ' PLAINTIFF, HAS LOST HIS ABILITY TO REMAIN EMPLOYED;,WITHIN A HARASSMENT 41 FREE WORKPLACE AND WILL ALWAYS BE MONITORED BY THE AUTHORITIES UNTIL THE CHILD IS 43 FOUND. PLAINTIFF, HAS PROVED THAT THE FAMILY AND MOTHER OF THAT MISSING CHILD HAS 45 STALKED PLAINTIFF SINCE THE IMPLICATION, AND RECENTLY CONFRONTED PLAINTIFF AT THE 47 ALAMEDA COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS DURING A, "GOODGUYS CAR SHOW" WHERE PLAINTIFF SOLD HIS 194 49 FORD FOR ATTORNEY FEES REGARDING THE DAtkTVILLE DETAINMENT AND ARREST. PLAINTIFF'S LATE GOVERNMENT CLAIM" r I PLAINTIFF, HAS PROVED THAT THIS AFOREMENTION STATEMENT IS TRUE, ON FEB. 2, 3 2001 IN THE TOWN OF DANVILLE, THE DANVILLE POLICE WERE 'DIRECTED BY A UNKNOWN ENTITIY 5 TO APPREHEND PLAINTIFF ON ROUTE HOME USING THE EXCUSE OF A CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE T 7 DETAIN PLAINTIFF SO AS TO PERFORM`A VEHICLE SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT. WHEREFORE, 9 ' VIOLATING PLAINTIFF'S FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS THAT DO TO THAT 11 DETAINMENT BE WAS SUBJECT TO A D.U.I. HARASSMENT AND ARRESTED. WHEREFORE, PROVIDING 13 THE AUTHORITIES WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEARCH PLAINTIF'F'S VEHICLE. PLAINTIFF, 15 ', ASSERTS THAT HE HAS NEVER HAD A CRIMINAL RECORD OR A CONCERN WITH THE AUTHORITIES 17 REGARDING ANY NATURE, UNTIL THIS FALSE IMPLICATION FOR CHILD ENDANGERMENT AND 19 ; HARASSMENT BY THE DANVILLE POLICE. FURTHERMORE, PLAINTIFF TRULY BELIEVES THAT THE FB 21 INFLUENCED PLAINTIFF'S CRIMINAL ATTORNEY AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT PLAINTIFF 23 TO GUILTY PLEA AND 'SETFORTH THE APPEAL PROCESS REGARDING THE ILLICIT DETAINMENT OF 25 PLAINTIFF FOR THE ABSENCE OF A VEHICLE LICENSE PLATE ON HIS NEW TRUCK, IN DANVILLE 0 27 THE 'EVENING OF FEB,. 2, 2001. 29 PLAINIFF, SUBMITS THIS LATE CLAIM FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONVINCE THIS COURT 31 AND THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO PROCEED WITH THE VIDICATION OF HIS 33 LEGAL RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES. PLAINTIFF, PRAYS TO THIS STATE 35 GOVERNMENT TO SUSTAIN THIS REQUEST TO SECURE HIS CIVIL RIGHTS AND MAINTAIN A LIFE OF 37 FREEDOM FROM LAW ENFORCEMENTTYRANNY AND CORPORATE ASSAULT. 39 41' Respectfully, 43 DATED: Feb. 25, 2002 Domenick S. Clemente 45 Plaintiff, 47 Sgneda. 49 PLAINTIFF'S LATE GOVERNMENT CLAIM 4 I IN PRO PER- DOMENICK S. CLEMENTE 3 69010 JOHNSTON ROAD f ! s m PLEASANTON CA 945$5 5 925-248-4505 CUUtt i ui UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 DOMENICK S. CLEMENTE, ) `Case No. : ''COI-4184 PJH 15 ) Plaintiff, } ,PLAINTIFF DOMENICK S. CLEMENTE 17 ) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT vs. ) A LA'T'E GOVERNMENT TORT CLAIM AND A 19 ) DECLARATION STATEMENT OF FACTS LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION, ET AL., DOES 'I- ) 21 ) PURSUANT TO: GOV. CODE $911. 6 30, INCLUSIVE,; ) 23 Defendants 25 ) PLAINTIFF, REQUEST TO THIS COURT FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT A 27 "LATE 'STATE' GOVERNMENT CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF NEW FACTS OBTAINED THROUGH DISCOVERY 29 IN SELF-REPRESENTATION. PLAINTIFF, `PREVIOUSLY' RETAIN-ED THREE LAW FIRMS TO SUPPORT 31 THIS CAUSE' OF ACTION THAT "RETATW 'BAC'' TO A FALSE IMPLICATION FOR KIDNAPPING 33 A CHILD IN DUBLIN, C.A. IN 1993-94. PLAINTIFF, BELIEVES THAT THE KIDNAPPING IS A 35 UNSOLVED CASE TO DATE. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF BELIEVES THAT THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 3? SHERIFF HAS INTERFERED WITH PLAINTIFF'S ATTEMPTS TO VINDICATE HIMSELF IN 39 A COURT OF LAW. FURTHERMORE, PLAINTIFF, ALLEGES THAT HIS EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION AT 41 THE SAN RAMON HIGH SCHOOL IN DANVILLE, ON OCT. 5, 1999 IS LINKED TO PLAINTIFF'S 43 ARREST BY THE DANVILLE POLICE, KNOW AS THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERRIF ON LOAN.. 45 PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY OF THIS ALLEDGED INVESTIGATION WAS BY ACCIDENT ON JAN. 28,1994. 47 PURSURNT FRCP 15 f C j (2 49 PLAINTIFF'S LATE GOVERNMENT CLAIM' I DECLARATION OF FACTS 3 1. PLAINTIFF, ALLEGES THAT HE WAS NEVER DETAINED OR QUESTIONED. BY ANY 5 LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FOR ANY INVOLVEMENT FOR A CRIME. PLAINTIFF, BELIEVES' THAT HE 7 HAS SUFFERED ENOUGH FOR THE MALICE AND FALSE IMPLICATION OF A CRIME HE NEVER 9 COMMITED. 'PLAINTIFF, TRULY BELIEVES THAT HE HAS PRODUCED A PAPER TRAIL OF FACTS THAT 11 REFLECT A'CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DID TAKE PLACE IN DUBLIN, CA. INVOLVING HIS FAMILY 13 IN THE FALL OF 1993-94. PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS THAT HE HAS FILED THE DOCUMENTATION WITH 15 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ON DEC. 5 2001. 17 PLAINTIFF, ALLEGES THAT HIS EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION FROM THE SAN RAMON UNIFIED SCHOOL 19 DISTRICT ON OCT. 5, 1999, IS LINKED TO THE TRI-VALLEY HERALD NEWSPAPER ARTICLE OF 21 OCT. 3, 1999, DISPLAYING PLAINTIFF AS A WINEMAKER'INVOLVED IN A WINERY STARTUP. 23 FURTHERMORE, COMPOUNDED BY BOB STOCKBURGER, ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE'SRVUSD OFFICE IN 25 DANVILLE, 'HAD KNOWLEDGE OF PLAINTIFF'S PRIOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IN 'DUBLIN. IN 27 1993-94, PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING AS A SUBSTITUTE; TEACHER IN THE DISTRICT AT CALIFORNIA 29 HIGH SCHOOL, AND BOB STOCKBURGER WAS THE PRINCIPLE. BOB STOCKBURGER WAS RESPONSIBLE 31 FOR SWITCHING PLAINTIFF'S FULL-TIME FIRST YEAR PROBATIONARY TEACHER CONTRACT TO A 33 TEMPORARY'CONTRACT AFTER BOB STOCKBURGER LEARNED OF PLAINTIFF'S HIRE THROUGH DAVID 35 LORDEN, PRINCIPLE AT SAN RAMON HIGH SCHOOL IN DUBLIN, CA. PLAINTIFF, TRULY BELIEVES 37 THAT HIS DETAINMENT ;AND ARREST FOR ALLEGED D.U.I. IN DANVILLE ON FEB. 2, 2001 WAS 39 RESULT OF 'THIS DEFAMATION FROM THE PAST. PLAINTIFF, ALLEGES THAT THE ARRESTING 41 OFFICER WAS TOLD TO APPR.ENDEND PLAINTIFF' ON ROUTE HOME. PLAINTIFF', DID'HAVE "A COPY O 43 THE DISPATCH TAPE FROM THE EVENING EVENT, SOMEONE ILLEGALY ENTERED PLAINTIFF'S HOME 45 AND STOLEN THE EVIDENCE. PLAINTIFF, FILED A REPORT WITH THE FBI IN SAN FRANCISCO. 47 49 PLAINTIFF'S LAVE GOVERNMENT CLAIM 1 2. PLAINTIFF, PREVIOUSLY FILED A STATE GOVERNMENT CLAIM IN 1998, SAN FRANCISCO 3 SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 00-00301841 REFERENCING THIS KIDNAPPING ALLIGATION AND TRULY 5 BELIEVED THAT A PROFESSOR FROM SAN FRANCISCO. STATE UNIVERSITY Mich".1 Rust Bart AND A 7 SFPD OFFICER Zart Sanders, NOW ACTING ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE IN SAN` FRANCISCO, W 9 RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RECKLESS MALICE. FURTHERMORE, 'PLAINTIFF `'BELIEVES THAT THE SAME 11 SFSU PROFESSORHARASSED PLAINTIFF AT HIS PLACE OF 'EMPLOYMENT, APPLIED MATERIALS, FOR 13 THE MURDER OF A EMPLOYEE IN 1995. PLAINTIFF, ALLEGES THAT TREE LAW FIRMS THAT WERE 15 TOLD BY AN UNKNOWN ENITITY TO 'DISMISS THEIR SERVICES, BECAUSE THE KIDNAPPING CASE IS ' 17 UNSOLVED AND PLAINTIFF'S' SPOUSE AND FAMILY COOPERATED WITH THE AUTHORITIES DURING T 19 1993-94 INVESTIGATION. PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS THAT HE IS NOW HAS A COPY OF TEE 3FSU 21 POLICE REPORT THAT REFLECTS THAT PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, &Art 23 Sander&, IS TRUE AND WHO ASSISTED IN CREATING THIS POISONICUS TREE OF DEFAMATION AND 25 SLANDEOUS IMPLICATION. PLAINTIFF, HAS PROVIDED PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS AND THAT HIS 27 ATTORNEY SCOTT HANDELMAN ESQ. TOOK PLAINTIFF TO NON-BINDING ARBITRATION WITHOUT THE 29 EVIDENCE. 31 3. PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS THAT THE FBI COVERED UP THIS MALICE AND HAS TO DATE 33 SUSPRESSED PLAINTIFF'S ABILITY TO EXPOSE' THIS OUTRAGEOUS MORAL INJUSTICE. PLAINTIFF 35 ALLEGES THAT HE HAS "SUPPLIED A DOCUMENT FROM THE TECBNIC'AL ADVISORY'SERVICES FOR 37 ArTORI+I.EY'S THAT REFLECTS INFORMATION ABOUT THIS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. PLAINTIFF, 39 ASSERTS THAT HIS LAST OPPORTUNITY TO REMAIN GAINFULLY EMPLOYED WAS DESTROYED WITHIN 41 SIX MONTHS OF HIRE, ;BY THIS SLANDOUS PATH OF CHARACTER ASSISSNATION AND FURTHERMORE 43 VIOLATING PLAINTIFF'S CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE WORKPLACE FOR THE FOURTH TIME IN 'TEN YEARS. 45 PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS THAT HIS WRONGFUL TERMINATION AT LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION ON JAN. 47 3, 2001 AND THE MANNER IN WHICH HE WAS TERMINATED AND HARASSED, LINE UP WITH THIS 49 PA'T'H OF PERSONAL DENIGRATION AND SLANDER'. PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS THAT THE BAY AREA PLAINTIFF""S LATE GOVERNMENT CLAIM d r" 1 AUTHORITIES SUPPORTED THREE MAJOR WORLDWIDE CORPORATIONS, BY COVERING UP THIS 3 EMPLOYMENT HARASSMENT AND FALSE IMPLICATIONS sFROM "MICHAEL RUSTIGAN. 5 4. PLAINTIFF, HAS LOST HIS ABILITY TO REMAIN EMPLOYED WITHIN A HARASSMENT FREE 7 WORKPLACE AND WILL ALWAYS BE MONITORED BY THE AUTHORITIES UNTIL THE CHILD IS FOUND. 9 PLAINTIFF, HAS PROVED THAT THE HIS MIS-CLASSIFACTION AND WRONGFUL TERMINATION FROM 11 THE SAN RAMO €7NITFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS MALICOUS AND INTEDED TO HARM PLAINTIFF. 13 FURTHERMORE, PLAINTIFF HAS PROVIDED A COPY OF THE MINUTE ORDER, REFERENCING A JUDGES 15 ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER IN SUPERIOR 'COURT, MARTINEZ'` CASE NO. MSCOO- 17 03818. PLAINTIFF, HAS PROVIDED DEPOSITION STATEMENTS FROM THE ORVUBD ADMINISTRATORS 19 THAT REFLECT THE AFOREMENTIONED MALICE. 21 5. PLAINIFF, SUBMITS THIS LAVE CLAIM FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONVINCE THIS COURT 23 AND THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO PROCEED WITH THE 25 VIDICATIflN OF HIS LEGAL RIGHTS' AS A CITIZEN OF THE; UNITED STATES. PLAINTIFF PRAYS T 27 THIS STATE GOVERNMENT TO SUSTAIN THIS REQUEST TO SECURE HIS CIVIL RIGHTS AND MAINTA 29 A LIFE OF FREEDOM FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT TYRANNY AND CORPORATE ASSAULT. 31 PLAINTIFF, TRULY BELIEVES THAT MICHAEL RUSTIGAN AND EARL SANDERS INVESTIGATED 33 PLAINTIFF WITH RECKLESS MALICE FOR PLAINTIFF'S CIVIL RIGHTS AND WHEREFORE ALL OF THE 35 ABUSE AND DEFAMATION PLAINTIFF HAS SUFFERED TO DATE, STEM FROM THE "CRIMINOLOGY CLAS 37 AT SFSU IN 1993" IN 'WHICH PLAINTIFF DISAGREED WITH PROFESSOR RUSTIGAN AND THEREFORE 39 BECAME A SUSPECT IN THE DISAPPEARANCE OF"' ILENE MISHELOFF. SCOTT HANDELMAN, ESQ. AND 41 BRUCE ROSEN, ESQ. WAS INFORMED TO DISMISS THEIR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO HELP 43 VINDICATE PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF, ALLEGES THAT HE HAS SPENT OVER $100,000 DOLLARS IN 45 LEGAL FEES TO :SETTLE THIS MATTER. 47 Respectfully, 49 DATED: FEB'. 19,: 2002 Domenick S. Clemente Plainti€f, PLAINTIFF'S LATE GOVERNMENT CLAIM t� 1 IN PRO PER DOMENICK S. CLE-2NTE 3 69GO JOHNSTON ROAD PLEASANTON CA 94588 5 925-248-4505 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ' 11 13 DOMENICK S. CLEMENTE } Case 'No. : ;COI-4184 Pmt 15 } Plaintiff, } PLAINTIFF DOMENICK S. CLEMENTE 17 ) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT vs. ) A LATE GOVERNMEXT TORT CLAIM AND A 19 } DECLARATION STATEMENT OF FACTS LAM RESEARCH CORPORA'T'ION, ET. AL., DOES 1- ) 21 ) PURSUANT TO: GOV. CODE $911. 5 30, INCLUSIVE,', ) 23 Defendants } 25 27 PLAINTIFF, REQUEST TO THIS COURT FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT A LATE 29 STATE GOVERNMENT CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF THE TRUE FACTS WERE NEVER SUBMITTED BY HIS 31 ATTORNEY IN 1998. PLAINTIFF, PREVIOUSLY RETAINED THREE LAW FIRMS TO SUPPORT THIS 33 CAUSE OF ACTION THAT ""RELATES BACK" TO A FALSE IMPLICATION FOR KIDNAPPING A:CHILD IN 35 DUBLIN, CA. PLAINTIFF, BELIEVES THAT THE KIDNAPPING IS AN UNSOLVED CASE TO DATE. 31 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF BELIEVES THAT BAN 8RAfiI'SC0 SM= URXYRRBLT'Y'"PROrMSOR ArC=4rL 39 RVSTIGW AW SW SSA=XSCO ASSX9TART' C;M27 Or POLZGZ, MRL SAMERS., HAS INTERFERED 41 WITH PLAINTIFF'S ATTEMPTS TO VINDICATE HIMSELF IN A COURT OF LAW, ,'WHEREFORE `THIS 43 CONTINUED DEFAMATION AT THE WORKPLACE CANNOT BE QUASHED'. PLAINTIFF, IS" IN THE PROLES 45 OF AMENDING HIS COMPLAINT' AGAINST THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND EARL SANDERS, AND 47 INTENDS TO ADD MICHAEL RUSTIGAN OF SFSU. 49 PLAINTIFF'S LATE GOVERNMENT CLAIM 1 FURTHERMORE, PLAINTIFF, ALLEGES THAT HIS SPOUSE AND FAMILY WERE QUESTIONED' 3 ABOUT PLAINTIFF"S HISTORY BY THE AUTHORITIES. PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY OF THIS ALLEDGED 5 INVESTIGATION WAS BY ACCIDENT ON JAN. 28,1994. [PURSUANT FRCP 15 (,0) (2)] . 7 DECLARATION OF FACTS' 9 1. PLAINTIFF, ALLEGES' THAT 'HE WAS NEVER DETAINED OR QUESTIONED BY ANY LAW 11 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FOR ANY INVOLVEMENT FOR A'CRIME. PLAINTIFF, BELIEVES THAT HE HAS 13 SUFFERED ENOUGH FOR THE MALICE AND FALSE IMPLICATION OF A CRIME HE NEVER COMMITED. 15 PLAINTIFF, TRULY BELIEVES THAT HE HAS PRODUCED A PAPER TRAIL, OF FACTS THAT REFLECT A 17 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DID TAKE PLACE IN DUBLIN, CA. INVOLVING HIS FAMILY IN THE' FAL 19 OF 1993-94. PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS THAT HE HAS FILED THE DOCUMENTATION WITHIN THE UNITED 21 STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ON DEC' 5, 2001. > 23 2. PLAINTIFF, PREVIOUSLY FILED A STATE GOVERNMENT CLAIM IN 1998, SAN FRANCISCO 25 SUPERIOR COURT"CASE:NO. CO-00301847 REFERENCING THIS KIDNAPPING ALLIGATION AND TRULY 27 BELIEVED THAT A PROFESSOR FROM SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSI'1"Y M3.cbao2 Rastlg!n AND A 29 SFPD OFFICER Marl Sanders, NOW ACTING ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE IN SAN FRANCISCO, WAE 31 RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RECKLESS MALICE. FURTHERMORE, PLAINTIFF BELIEVES THAT THE SAME 33 SFSU PROFESSOR'HARASSED PLAINTIFF AT HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT, APPLIED MATERIALS, FOR 35 THE MURDER OF A EMPLOYEE IN 1995. PLAINTIFF, ALLEGES THAT THREE LAW FIRMS THAT WERE 37 TOLD BY AN UNKNOWN ENITITY TO`DIS4ISS THEIR SERVICES, BECAUSE THE KIDNAPPING CASE IS 39 UNSOLVED AND PLAINTIFF'S SPOUSE AND FAMILY COOPERATED WITH THE AUTHORITIES DURING T 41 1993-94 INVESTIGATION. PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS THAT BE IS NOW HAS A COPY OF THE 'SFSU 43 POLICE REPORT THAT REFLECTS THAT PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, Earl 45 Sanders, IS TRUE AND WHO ASSISTED IN CREATING THIS POISONIOUS TREE OF DEFAMATION AND 47 SLANDEOUS IMPLICATION. PLAINTIFF, HAS PROVIDED PROOF OF`s, HIS ALLEGATIONS AND THAT HIS 49 ATTORNEY SCOTT .,HANDELMAN, ESQ. TOOK PLAINTIFF TO NON-BINDING`'ARBITRATION WITHOUT THE EVIDENCE. PLAINTIFF'S LATE GOVERNMENT CLAIM r 1 3. PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS 'THAT 'THE FBI COVERED UP THIS MALICE AND HAS TO DATE 3 SUSPRESSED PLAINTIFF'S ABILITY TO EXPOSE THIS OUTRAGEOUS MORAL INJUSTICE. PLAINTIFF 5 ALLEGES THAT HE HAS SUPPLIED A DOCUMENT FROM THE TECHNICAL ADV?SORX SERVICES FOR 7 ATTORNEY'S THAT REFLECTS INFORMATION ABOUT THIS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION'. PLAINTIFF, 9 ASSERTS THAT HIS LAST OPPORTUNITY TO REMAIN GAINFULLY EMPLOYED WAS DESTROYED WITHIN 11 SIX MONTHS OF HIRE, BY THIS SLANDOUS PATH OF 'CHARACTER ASSISSNATION AND FURTHERMORE 13 VIOLATING PLAINTIFFS CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE WORKPLACE FOR THE FOURTH TIME IN TEN YEARS.' 15 PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS THAT HIS WRONGFUL TERMINATION AT LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION ON JAN. 17 3, 2001 AND THE MANNER IN WHICH HE WAS TERMINATED AND HARASSED, LINE UP WITH THIS 19 PATH OF PERSONAL DENIGRATION AND SLANDER. PLAINTIFF, ASSERTS THAT THE BAY AREA 21 AUTHORITIES SUPPORTED THREE MAJOR WORLDWIDE CORPORATIONS, BY COVERING UP THIS 23 EMPLOYMENT HARASSMENT AND FALSE IMPLICATIONS FROM''MICHAEL RUSTIGAN. 25 4. PLAINTIFF, HAS LOST HIS ABILITY TO REMAIN EMPLOYED WITHIN A``HARASSMENT FREE 27 WORKPLACE AND WILL ALWAYS BE MONITORED BY THE; AUTHORITIES UNTIL THE CHILD IS FOUND. 29 PLAINTIFF, HAS 'PROVED THAT THE HIS MIS-C'LASSIFACTION AND WRONGFUL TERMINATION FROM 31 THE SAN RAMON UNITFI'ED SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS MALICOUS AND' INTEDED TO HARM PLAINTIFF. 33 FURTHERMORE, PLAINTIFF HAS PROVIDED A COPY OF THE MINUTE ORDER REFERENCING A JUDGES 35 ORDER OVERRULING DEF'ENDANT'S DEMURRER IN SUPERIOR COURT, MARTINEZ CASE NO. MSC00- 37 03818. PLAINTIFF, HAS PROVIDED DEPOSITION STATEMENTS FROM THE SRVUSD ADMINISTRATORS 39 THAT REFLECT THE AFOREMENTIONED MALICE. 41 5. PLAINIFF, SUBMITS THIS LATE CLAIM FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONVINCE THIS COURT 43 AND THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO PROCEED WITH THE 45 VIDICATION OF HIS LEGAL RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES. PLAINTIFF, PRAYS T 47 THIS '.STATE' GOVERNMENT TO SUSTAIN THIS REQUEST TO SECURE HIS CIVIL RIGHTS AND MAINTA 49 A LIFE OF FREEDOM FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT TYRANNY AND CORPORATE ASSAULT PLAINTIFF'S LATE GOVERNMENT CLAIM r 1 PLAINTIFF, TRULY BELIEVES THAT MICHAEL RUSTIGAN AND EARL SANDERS INVESTIGATED " 3 PLAINTIFF WITH RECKLESS MALICE' FOR 'PLAINTIFF''S CIVIL RIGHTS AND WHEREFORE ALL OF THE 5 ABUSE AND 'DEFAMATION PLAINTIFF HAS 'SUFFERED TO DATE, STEM FROM THE "CRIMINOLOGY CLAS 7 AT SFSU IN 1993" IN WHICH PLAINTIFF DISAGREED WITH PROFESSOR RUSTICAN AND TMREFORE 9 BECAME A SUSPECT IN THE DISAPPEARANCE OF ILENE MISBELOFF. SCOTT HANDELMAN, ESQ. AND 11 BRUCE ROSEN, ESQ. WAS INFORMED TO DISMISS THEIR PROFESSIONAL', SERVICES TO HELP 13 VINDICATE PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF, ALLEGES THAT HE HAS SPENT OVER $100,000 DOLLARS IN 15 LEGAL FEES TO SETTLE THIS MATTER. 17 19 Re pectfully, 21 23 DATED: FEB. 19, 2002 Domenick S. Clemente 25 Plaintiff, 27 5igned� — 29 31 33 35 37 39 4 43 45 47 49 PLAINTIFF'S LATE GOVERNMENT CLAIM SUMMONS 202-982(A)(9) (CAACION JUDICIAL) AN court the ONLY '140TICE TO DEFENDANT- {Aviso a Acusado} `s°t°M10'` O#M`ORM , Re's Qty x YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF. {A Vd. le esta demandando) You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this sum- Despues de que le entreguen esta dfad6n judicial gusted mons is served on you to file a typewritten re- tiene un plazo de 30 DIAS CAI ENDARIOS para presentar sponse at this court. una r+espuesta escrita a maquina en esta corte A letter or phone callwill not protect you; your Una Carta o una llanrada telef6nica no 'le ofrecera typewritten response must be in;proper legal proteccir5rn, su respuesta escrita a rniiquina tiene que form if you want the court;;to bear your case.' ° curpplir corn las fortnalidades legates apropladas si usted If you den not file your,response on time,you may quare que la cyte esruche su rasa lose the case,and your wages, money and pro- Si usted no prc#senta su respuesta a tiempq puede perder party may be taken without further warning from' el casoy y le jnueden quilar su sala 44 su drnero y otras cowls the court. de so propiedad sin aviso adidonal par parte de 1a Torte There are other legal requirements. You may Ex sten'otros requlsitos legales. Puede flue usted guiera want to call an attorney,right away.It you do not 1/5mar a un abogado inrrnediatamente 51 no conoce a urn know an attorney,You may call an attorney'refer- abogado, puede Itaniar a un servicer, rte referencia tie ral service or a legal aid office:Misted in the phone abojados o a una oFcina de ayuda legal fvea el directoria book?. tele tinico). Wit:NUMSE (Nuaxro -The name and address of the court is: (F/hombre y direccOn de la carte es) '01 - -' 3 t +ear ka tic 0-Q t 4- - 4 W o eO 4-41 d -e 24"ZZR SY �( MOM IO&Ct RT MUSE fWWAF D,CA ll ' The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: W nombre la direcci& y el nomero de telfono del abogado def demandants o del demandante que no tiene abogadof es) y dr S 4 DATE frecha): okcruario) (Delepdo) ISEMiNt rICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served SOF as an individual defendant. • 2.ED as the person sued under the fictitious name of (spe fyt: t.ts. r 3. on behalf of (specify): w. under 1= C1 P 41610 (corporation) CCP 416.60 tminor) i CCP 416.213 (defunct corporation) CCF'41670(conservatee) Ory Of e„i~: [ CCF'416.40 tassociation:or partnership}„ CCP 416.90 (individual) other. 4. by personal'delivery on (datet form Adopted by Pude 982 is"reverse for Proof of Service) Jud;"couma ofCaliforrpa 9824a1(9)Wev.Jerweryr t. 19841 SUMMONS CCP 412.20 OFFICE OF THE CLERK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS NORTI•IERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA r }'A� 4k RICHARD W.WIEKING 450 GOLDEN ` CLERK SAN FRANCISCCS, 415.522.204 t CASE NUMBER C01 4184BZ CASE TITLE: CLEMENTE 'VS LAM RESEARCH REASSIGNMENT ORDER GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR., IT IS ORDERED that this case is reassigned to the Honorable PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON for all further proceedings. Counsel are instructed that all future filings,shall bear the initials PJH immediately after the case number. ALL MATTERS PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR HEARING ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RENOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THE CASE HAS BEEN REASSIGNED. Date:; 11/21101 FOR THE EXECUTIVE COM141TTEE: NEW'CASE FILE CLERK Copies to:Courtroom Deputies / Special Projects Log Book Noted Entered in Computer 11/21141 MAB CASE SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR: Copies to: All Counsel Transferor CSA '' NDC CSA-20 ENDORSE} 1 PRO PER FILED DOMENICK SAMUEL CLEMENTE A F d FDA Col.TNT T-1 INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF INDIVIDUAL RESIDENCE '! " 3 MAILING ADDRESS CLERK Of'THE SUPERIO CO [a 6900 J'OHNSTONROAD By 4' PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 9458$' Deputy 5 { Superior Court Of California County of Alameda, Hayward 8 Domenick Samuel Clemente, } Case No.:: No. 0 1 a 0 (ter 1 8 1 9 Plaintiff, } WR0NGfU1 'TERMINATION, CIVIL RIGHTS } VIOLATIONS, SEXUAL'HARASSMEN't, 10 vs'. } DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF } EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND NEGLIGENT 11 LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION, et., al., } INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, } FINANCIAL DURESS, AND LOSS OF 12 mane Cross, a individual, FREMONT } CONSORTIUM. } 13 POLICE DEPARTMENT TOWN OF FREMONT, a } } 14' government entity, APPLIED MATERIALS } } 15' CORPORATION, ';et. a1., SANTA 'CLARFt } 16 POLICE DEPARTMENT, 'TOWN OF SANTA } } 17' CLARA, a government entity, FEDERAL ) } 18 BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, A FEDERAL } } 19 GOVERNMENT ENTITY, DUBLIN POLICE } } 20 DEPARTMENT, TOWN OF DUBLIN, a } } 21 government entity, ALAMEDA COUNTY } l 22 SHERIFF, a government entity, GENERAL } } 23 MOTORS CORPORATION, et. al., an ) } 24 affiliates, Michael Springle, an } } 25 individual, and Does 1-30Defendant's } } 1 3 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS' 1. Defendant's Lam 'Research Corporation, et.. Al., Lane Cross, a 5 individual, Fremont Police Department, Town of Fremont, a government entity, Applied Materials Corporation, et. al., Santa Clara 'Police Department, Town Of Santa Clara, a government entity, Dublin Police Department, Town of Dublin, a government 7 entity, are and at all times herein mentioned was and is the local law enforcement entities governed by the Alameda County 8 Sheriff, a county government entity,;, Federal Bureau of Investigation, governed by the United States Federal Government, 9 General Motors Corporation, et., al. and its affiliates., of the Town of Detroit, Michigan. Plaintiff is informed and believes and 10 thereon alleges that at all times herein-mentioned defendant Federal Bureau Of Inv estlgation, is the acting Federal Lew 11 Enforcement Agency Of The United States Federal Government. _< Plaintiff, is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at 12 all times herein-mentioned defendant's Lam Research Corporation, establishment is within the County of Fremont, Ca. and Applied 13 Materials Corporation County Of Santa Clara, Ga. jurisdiction. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that 14 defendant Lane Gross, an individual was an employee: of Lain Research on Oct. 9t`. 2000. Plaintiff, alleges :that he is the 15 person responsible for sexual harassment of Plaintiff. Plaintiff, alleges that an 'Applied Materials Corporation employee is 16 responsible for defamation at the workplace of Plaintiff on Oct. nd. 2000 at Lam Research Corporation, 4650 Cushing Parkway, 17 Fremont, Ca. Plaintiff, subsequently resulting in Plaintiff's. termination from Lam Research on Jan. 3, 2001. Plaintiff, asserts 18 that the information supplied by that person could only have come from the Plaintiff's previous employer or the FBI and that the 19 true: identity of that entire defendant here on mentioned -is not known`. Plaintiff, is informed and believes and thereon alleges 20 that Michael Rustigan, SFSU Professor, harassed Plaintiff at Applied Materials Corporation in 1995, for the implication of 21 killing Matthew Flores a supervisor shot ;in the parking lot at :GMAT, a unsolved murder at the time of implication..' Plaintiff, 22 alleges that the FBI, and Santa Clara Police, SFSU Campus Police, FPD of San Francisco, suppressed the evidence and malicious 23 actions of Michael Rustigan and Earl Sanders in 1993 in :Dublin, CA. and 1995 at Applied Materials. FURTHERMORE, Plaintiff, 24 alleges that Applied'Materials '.violated Plaintiff's 4th., 5`h. civil rights to the Constitution at the workplace in 1995, 25 subsequently resulting in Plaintiff's termination from Applied Materials after the two year civil suit statue expired in April 1997 and further violated;Plaintiff's attorney client privileges I with Carl Lindstrom, Esq. Plaintiff, alleges and believes that Michael Springl.e, an*employee of the general Motors Corporation 2 Chevrolet Division, at the time of the offense, is the individual whom implicated Plaintiff for kidnapping Ilene Misheloff, of 3 Dublin, Ca. Plaintiff'', alleges that Michael Springle was recently involved in a hit-an-run crosswalk accident in Dublin, CA. and 4was admitted to the San Ramon Malley Rehabilitation' Hosptal to recover from his auspicious and timely accident while crossing 5 the street in front of Crown Chevrolet, just weeks after General Motors Corporation learned that Plaintiff was now aware of the 6 implication. Plaintiff, alleges; that an unknown entity entered his workplace in 1999 while employed with the San Ramon Valley 7' High School.', and defamed Plaintiff, subsequently resulting in Plaintiff's termination after two months of service, WHEREFORE 8' Plaintiff prays to this Superior Court Of California, Alameda County to amend this complaint when the true names of the 9 defendants are exposed through discovery. 10 2. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and;, capacities of defendants sued herein as 'DOES "1 through 30, inclusive, whether 11' individual., corporate, public, and associate or otherwise, and therefore, sue these defendants by such fictitious names. 12 Plaintiff will amend this 'complaint to allege their true names and capacities when a'scertained'. Plaintiff is further informed 13 and believes and thereon alleges that each of the defendants designated herein as a DOE is in some manner negligently' 14 responsible for the occurrences and injuries alleged herein, and that Plaintiff's injuries as herein alleged were proximately is caused by that negligence. Plaintiff,, -alleges that a Dublin Police officer heard Linda Meyers scream in a mantic rage while 16 involved in a traffic accident report with Plaintiff, on January 28, 1994. Plaintiff, asserts and believes that the Dublin Police 17 covered up the investigation and that an unknown entity told Linda Meyers a former teacher of Ilene Misholoff that Plaintiff 18 was the kidnapper. Plaintiff, alleges that Linda Meyers truly believed that Plaintiff was going to kill her daughter as well. 19 during that traffic accident in Dublin. Plaintiff, alleges that n June 1998; Linda Meyers fled the State of California to avoid 20 testimony in court, during Plaintiff's lawsuit against Michael Rustigan, SFSU Professor. Plaintiff, asserts that within the same 21 month, Earl. Sanders, Assistant Chief of Police in San Francisco supplied written denial to the 'State Attorney General's office. 22 FURTHERMORE, .Mi.chaei Rusti gan, lied under oath' in deposition.; 23 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants was the agent 24 or officer of the .remaining defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was acting within the course and scope of 25 such agency and with the permission and consent of his or her codefendants. Plaintiff, alleges that he is defending himself from civil rights violations generated by the Danville Police 1, Department, Town of Danville, and the Contra County Sheriff on Feb. 2, 2001 in the Town of Danville. Plaintiff, asserts that he 2 has retain an attorney appealing the action and suppressed the evidence from the Danville Police Dispatch Tapes, that clearly 3 state 'that ``Plaintiff was illegally stopped and framed by an unknown entity whom called ""911." the evening of Plaintiff's 4 arrest. Plaintiff, has retained a criminal attorney to appeal the arrest in superior Court, Walnut Creek, GA. 5 $.Plaintiff has filed this complaint, inclusive the DOES;.with the 5 County of Alameda, Superior Court of California as informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Federal, State and local 7 law enforcement defendant's acted outside the course and scope of their'employment and duties as employees and officers of the laws 8 that govern their duties. Plaintiff, alleges that this investigative cover-up, suggests in itself law enforcement 9' harassment and abuse of Plaintif'f's civil: rights. 10 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the damages suffered and about to incur as a result of the acts, 11 omissions and conduct: of the defendants, and each of them, exceeds the jurisdictional amount of twenty-five thousand dollars 12 ($25,000.00) . 13 WHERZFORE,;plaintiff prays judgment as hereinafter set forth 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION WRONGVUL MMINATION 15 CMT, RIGHTS VIOLATIONS 16 6. Plaintiff, incorporates each and every paragraph of the 17 General Allegations of this complaint as if `fully set forth i3 herein. Plaintiff, asserts And believes that his hiring 1 process at Lam Research on June 3, 2000 was foiled by an 20 outside entity. Plaintiff, alleges that during",his ""New Hire 21 Orientation" Plaintiff` attended `a human Resources Seminar with 2 twenty-nine other new hires Plaintiff, alleges that, during 23 the introduction phase on the first morning, he was singled 24 out and excluded from receiving a New Hire Benefits and Salary 25 Contract. Plaintiff, alleges that the Human Resource Director 1 at that meeting told Plaintiff in front of twenty-nine new 2 hires, that Plaintiff was a "special case" and that he would 3 receive his information at a later date. Plaintiff, asserts 4 that he did not sign any documents during the two-day 5 orientation. Plaintiff, alleges that he did not sign an "At- 6 Will" contract or the ""Security information Act Contract" as 7 did the twenty-nine new hires. Plaintiff, alleges that he had 8 to wait one week to receive any documents from Human Resources 9 and that he only received a Benefits Statement that did not 10 bear Lam Research's stationary. Plaintiff, alleges that an 11 unknown entity inside barn Research supplied derogatory 12 information about Plaintiff or an outside entity entered. haat 13 Research, so as to assassinate Plaintiff's; reputation and foil 14 his employment possibilities. Plaintiff, alleges that during 15 his entire six months of hire, he never met with a Human 16 Resource representative to 'correct and sign the necessary: and 17 standard forms required by Lam Research's hiring policy. 18 7. 2n or about the' morning of Oct. 24. 2000, Plaintiff, alleges and 19 witnessed a blonde woman holding a 'folder in her arms and 20 ;standing on the second floor of CA 1, as Plaintiff entered 21 Building CA-1. Plaintiff, alleges this person a unknown entity 22 entered and defamed Plaintiff to his peers and Supervisor's at 23 his place of employment at, Lam Research Corporation, 4650 :Z4 Cushing Parkway, Building CA-1, located within the town, of 25 Fremont, Ca. and presiding within the County Of Alameda, California. Plaintiff, alleged and witnessed that on the same I morning in or about 1.0:20 AM, all of Plaintiff's peers and co- 2 workers were assembled within the confines of Training 3 Supervisor, John Sibiski office for consultation. Plaintiff, 4 alleges that he was not asked to attend this session 4nd 5 assembly. FURTHERMORE, Plaintiff has an email from George 6 Schisler, Esq. that admits to 'supplying that information at 7 Plaintiff's interview with physiatrists in Dec. 2000. 8 sscom cAuse OF AC'ion SAL HARPAssm 1TT, 9 ogrAMATiou, zNTzNTxoNAL IP rucTipx or mt TiounL fliS mss 10 8 Plaintiff, alleges that in or about Oct. 9, 2000, mane Cross, an 11 employee of Lam Research Corporation and co-worker of Plaintiff, 12 supplied, displayed, and installed nude photos! of Plaintiff on Lan 13 Research Corporations Intranet, Worldwide. Plaintiff, alleges and 14 witnessed that on Oct. 9t". 2000 on or about 10:00 AM, defendant, 15 Lane Cross was walked off the property of Lam,Research by Greg 16 Acton and subsequently terminated for this illegal act. 17 9. Plaintiff, alleges that the nude photo's displayed Plaintiff 18 masturbating within the privacy and confines of his home:, 19 located and positioned on six abres within the CoAinty Of Contra 20 Costa, California. Plaintiff, alleges and believes that no form 21 of nude photographs of Plaintiff ever existed,'before, or has 22 Plaintiff ever permitted, supplied, posed or given permission to 23 photograph Plaintiff in the nine for public display. Plaintiff, 24 alleges and asserts that he was told by officer Scott Sanders of 25 the Fremont Police, to contact the Contra Costa County Sheriff as well and file a trespassing report. Plaintiff, asserts that he I called the:Contra Costa C€(mty Sheriff twice and twice they 2 arrived at Plaintiff's hone and refused to take a report. In 3 quoting the last Officer's statements upon verbal contact with 4 plaintiff, "If you want us to take a report, show us the pictures 5 otherwise its just hear say. Besides, its not illegal to 6 photograph yourneighbor if they make themselves available!" 7 10. Plaintiff, alleges that Lam Research Corporation and its 8 employee's suppressed the alleged photos of Plaintiff, so as to 9 protect themselves from legal ramifications. Plaintiff, asserts 10 and alleges that. Lam Research could not suppress the defamation 12 and slander and embarrassment from his co-workers and pears that 12 followed in the months to come. 13 14 11. Plaintiff, alleges that he tried to amend his relationship with 15 hisSupervisor's and peers, but failed to suppress the slander. 16 plaintiff, asserts that in or about°`Dec. '5t"'. 2000, Plaintiff 17 learned froma c(5-worker that the General Motors Corporation was is responsible for generating the implication and character 19 assassination of Plaintiff to the authorities. Plaintiff, asserts" 20 that this implication for kidnapping was 'generated ..so as to 21 destroy Plaintiff's ability to testify in court as ;an expert 22 witness, engaged in civil litigation against General Motors 23 products within the scope of a class action lawsuit .for 24 committing fraud against the American Motoring Public, with the 25 Norm Taylor Law Firm in Glendale, CA. 1 12. Plaintiff, alleges that Lam ResearchCorporation changed: their 2 URI, Address, held a general Supervisor's meeting company-wide in 3 CA-1, to suppress further harassment and slander of Plaintiff by 4 co-workers, only after Plaintiff filed his complaint about 5 continuing sexual harassment from his peers. Plaintiff, ;alleges 6 that on Monday morning Oct. 9t". Prior to 'Plaintiff's arrival the 7 nude photos appeared on the company intranet worldwide and S numerous slanderous comments spread throughout the company- 9 Students of Plaintiff's from Italy, :Germany and France .saw the 10 photos and made slanderous comments. Plaintiff, alleges that 11 employees wham-readily visited Plaintiff's home and participated 12 in Plaintiff's first grape harvest in September, verbally refused 13 to ever making a return visit. Furthermore, Plaintiff received. 14 numerous slanderous remarks from Oct. 9th. Through :December 15th 1 Christmas Break; 16 13. Plaintiff,' alleges that on Dec., 3r6.; 2000, Plaintiff advertised 17 and supported a Christmas Party at his place of residence for his 18 co-workers; so as to reunite the group and amend the defamation 19 and character assassination. Plaintiff, asserts that within the 20 scope of that advertisement, he received negative responses from 21 the individuals' whom visited in Sept. 2000. Plaintiff, asserts 22 that he diel attract four co-workers and their spouses. During the 23 Dec. 3r,*. 2000 Christmas Party,, Plaintiff was asked what happened 24 at Applied'`Materials and how long did Applied Materials 25 "'Blackballed" Plaintiff from returning to employment. 1 2 THIRD CAV8Z or ACTION 3 NP-GLIGMT ''INFLICTION Or ENOTIONAL DIS SS 4 14. Plaintiff, alleges that on Sept. 30th. 2000, a "co-worker victor 5 Monsen and his daughter assisted Plaintiff with his harvested' 6 grape and bottling efforts. During that visit, victor Monson's 7 daughter asked Plaintiff what were the exact reasons that 8 Plaintiff left Applied Material's. Plaintiff, alleges that Lam 9 Research is negligent in employer, employee relationship by not 10 informing Plaintiff of defamatory information. WHEREFORE, 11 Plaintiff, concludes that the end results weie emanate,' 12 termination. 13 15. Plaintiff, alleges that on Dec. 14 . 2000, Plaintiff was asked to 14 submit to an interview with 'tsars hired, contracted physiatrists to 15 evaluate Plaintiff for being dangerous and subject Plaintiff to 16 questions about his Education and past employment and gun 17 ownership, Plaintiff, asserts that at that interview, Lam 18 Research Corporate Attorney, George -<<Schisler supplied information 19 that Plaintiff's alleged character assassination was brought to 20 Lam Research Training Department on Oct. 2, 2000. Plaintiff, 21 alleges that Pat Body, Training Managers Administrative 22 Assistant, labeled Plaintiff as being dangerous because she 2S viewed a firearm within the confines of Plaintiff's home by 24 accident. FURTHERMORE, Plaintiff asserts that Pat Body knew that 25 Plaintiff was an American Hunter and a NRA Member. Plaintiff, alleges that on the evening of his interview in December, Pat, 1 Body denied having anything to do with creating the interview`. 2 Plaintiff, asserts that his supervisor David Jenkins told 3 Plaintiff on his last day of employment that Pat Booty was 4 responsible for the interview. Plaintiff., alleges that this 5 interview event and the questions derived from that:. event, i 6 suggests that outside information entered Lam Research and 7 exposed Plaintiff's past history with Applied Materials. 8 16. Plaintiff, alleges that on Dec. 11, 2000 the Fremont Police was 9 called to Building GA-1 to speak with security about Plaintiff's 10 allegations of sexual harassment. Plaintiff, alleges that his co- 11 workers witnessed this event and during that same day, Lam 12 Research had a general managers meeting to attempt to suppress 13 the slander and defamation of Plaintiff. 14 17. Plaintiff, alleges that his interviews with security officer Flick 15 Orloff, generated information that Lam Research,bel eyed that 16 bane Gross' received the photos :from;,employees of Applied 17 Materials Corporation. Plaintiff, 'asserts that Mr. Orloff asked 18 Plaintiff if he knew who at Applied Materials might have ties and 19 connections to 'Lane Crass'. 24 18. Plaintiff, alleges that on Dec. 19u' 2000, he made an attempt to 21 file a police report with the Fremont Police Department, and was 22 denied the; opportunity to do so by, 'Officer Benny Cox #1922. 23 Plaintiff, alleges that officer Cox stated in quote, 'We can't 24 tell whether you gave them permission to take the photos or not 25 and our department does not even have a penal code to address" this issue!' Plaintiff, suggests that this comment alone asserts 1 that the Fremont Police had knowledge that photos were taken and 2 displayed at Lam Research on the morning of Oct. 9th. 3 19. Plaintiff, alleges that he had to return for a second time to the 4 Fremont Police Department to request the filing of a report. 5 Plaintiff, alleges that Officer Scott Sanders, °#2830 met with 6 Plaintiff and took his statement and filed a report #010112037. 7 Plaintiff, alleges that this second visit and consultation with 8 Officer Sanders was indeed`-180 Degrees from his previous attempt 9 to file with Officer Cox. Plaintiff, alleges that Officer Sanders 10 suggested in quote, "These corporations always find ways to cover 11 up things like this, and slander runs rampant very fast through 12 the employees." Plaintiff, disclosed the turn of events to officer 13 Sanders, and the {officer told Plaintiff that a'whereabouts/search 14 was suggested by Lam Research to locate Plaintiff, two days prior 1s to Christmas Break. 1f 20. Plaintiff, 'asserts that on Jan. 2na. ,2001, Plaintiff was 1'I interviewed and set-ug by his supervisor, ;,David Jenkins and 18 Training Manager, Jack Boniface and was placed on disciplinary 19 action for allegations of broadcasting the recent tarn of events 20 of slander and defamation and sexual harassment by his co-workors. ' 21 Plaintiff, alleges that within that meeting, David Jenkins and 22 Jack Boniface told Plaintiff that they did contact the Fremont 23 -Police to perform a search for his whereabouts in Dec. 2000, 24 because they had: concerns for Plaintiff's safety. 25 FOURTH CAUSS Or ACTIO, 2 FINANCIAL DURR33 3 21. Plaintiff, alleges that on Jan. 3r". 2001 Plaintiff was asked to 4 visit HumanResources within that visit Plaintiff was terminated 5 from employment. Plaintiff, alleges that David ;Jenkins and Ms. 6 Sims of Human Resources performed the termination and that Ms. 7 Simms stated in quote, 'We 'have' proof that you violated the 8 disciplinary action. 9 22. Plaintiff, asserts and can prove that his 'job performance was 10 excelling and his employee` co-worker>relationships were sound, 11 prior ;to :Oct. 2n. 2000. Plaintiff, alleges that the issues and 12 comments that transpired between supervisors and co-workers, were 13 generated from Applied Materials employees, a prior employer of 14 Plaintiff's. Plaintiff, alleges that:he never met a Human Resource 15 manager until the day of his termination Jan. 3, 2001. 16 23. Plaintiff, asserts that the questions generated by the contracted 17 physiatrists, line up with predisposed information from the 16 Applied Materials Corporation. Plaintiff, alleges that employees 19 of the Applied Materials Corporation' "Blackballed`r Plaintiff from 20 employment for three years. 21 24. Plaintiff, alleges that the unknown identity of the blonde woman 22 that entered Lam Research on Oct. 2, 2000, was employed or 23 associated with Applied Materials Corporation, and. displayed 24 photos of Plaintiff at that meeting., 25 25. Plaintiff, asserts and was told by a Lam Research employee on Oct.'' 9'", 2000 that he could not believe what he saw of Plaintiff on the I Intranet Site that morning,, grasping his face with embarrassment. 2Plaintiff, alleges that employees of Applied Materials Corporation 3' generated his wrongful termination and sexual harassment at Lam 4 Research. 5 26. Plaintiff, alleges that Security Chief, Greg Acton at Lam Research 6 knew of Plaintiff"s prior history and employment at Applied 7' Materials and was respdnsible for generating a "Building Alert 8' Paster" of Plaintiff prior to Plaintiff's wrongful termination at 9 Applied Materials, when Greg Acton was employed by AMAT. 14' 11' 27. Plaintiff, alleges that an employee of Applied Materials informed 12 Phil Tudor, Esq. of Crosby, Heafy, Roach and May, In 1998, that 13' Plaintiff was acquitted of a criminal charge in 1993 in Dublin, 14 CA. Wherefore, Phil Tudor, Esq. refused to use Plaintiff's expert 15' witness service at trial and FURTHERMORE, notified Technical 16 Advisory Service For Attorney's in Blue Bell, P ., a contractor 17 for Plaintiff's personal business. Subsequently,; and permanently 18 damaging Plaintiff's ability to obtain further employment as an 19 expert witness with TASA. 20 21 28. Plaintiff, alleges that during his personal search for any 22 criminal record within 'five 'counties and seven local Police 23 Agencies, including the FBI, Plaintiff, asserts that he was 24 steered and detained for over four hours by the Alameda County 25 Sheriff's Office, during December 1998 while submitting to' a requested electronic fingerprint scan and search by its Oakland, 2 Ca. Office. Plaintiff, alleges that he discovered from a retained 2. attorney that the Police Departments do not have to take a persons 3 fingerprints to see if that person has a criminal record. 4 THEREFORE, setting the stage for departmental abuse of Plaintiff's 51 civil rights seeking information. rxrTu CAUSE or ACTioN' Loss or ct?x3t?RTIuK 8 29. Plaintiff, alleges and believes that some unknown entity sent 9' Ervin Weber, an investigator and farmer D.O.J. agent to 1U' Plaintiff's home -so as to discover ghat evidence Plaintiff had to 11 back up his claims. Plaintiff, asserts that he willingly gave Mr. 12' Weber evidence that supports the; investigative claims. Plaintiff, 13 alleges that he received word back from Mr. Weber that the FBI 14 made a mistake and covered it up. WHEREFORE, resulting in 15" Plaintiff's loss of spouse, normal relationship :with a his family 16, and friends. FURTHERMORE, resulting in this continuous slander and 17; defamation and unemployment of Plaintiff's last 'five `employers, 18` General Motors; Saab Cars, Inc., Applied Materials, San Ramon Nigh 19 School, and .Lam Research. Plaintiff, asserts and believes that he 20 has the legal right to be employed in America and perform as any 21 other American in society, within the scope of a harassment free 22 workplace. Plaintiff, asserts that he has suffered emotionally,, 23 spiritually, physically, mentally and 'financially from this 24 ` poisonous tree of character assassinations. 25 1> 30. Plaintiff, pleas :to this court for mercy and due justice under the 2laws governed by this court. Plaintiff, alleges and asserts that 3; he has obtain written permissionto sue Lam Research Corporation 4' from the EEOC, of Oakland, CA. whom firmly, believes that 5 Plaintiff, was sexually harassed and wrongfully'terminated from 6' Lam Research Corporation on Jan.` 3'�d. 2001. Plaintiff, will seek to 7' amend this complaint h+er(p on when future need dictates revision.. 8 10 11 Plaintiff, 12 Domenick S. Clemente 13 ' Signec�7� 14 l5 16 17s 18 18r 20 21 ' 22 23 24 25 PRO PER ENDORSED DOMENICK SAMUEL CLEMENTE FILED 2 INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF AL.AMEDA COUNTY INDIVIDUAL RESIDENCE OCT 2 3 20€11 3 MAILING ADDRESS 6900 JOHNSTON ROAD CLERK OF THE SUPER 4R C"oun 4 PLEASAN'TON, CALIFORNIA 94588 By -SuSIn C. CA O `s 6 Superior Court Of California 7 County Of Alameda, Hayward 8 Domeniek Samuel Clemente, ) Case No.. 01025718 S Plaintiff, ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT VS. ) WRONGFUL TERMINATION, CIVIL RIGHTS 10 LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION, et. al., } VIOLATIONS, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, Lane Cross, a individual, F'REMONT } DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF 1 POLICE DEPARTMENT, TOWN OF F'REMONT, a ) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS', AND NEGLIGENT' city government entity, APPLIED } INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, 1 MATERIALS CORPORATION, et. al., SANTA CLARK. POLICE' DEPARTMENT, TOWN OF ) FINANCIAL DURESS, ',DECLARATORY RELIEF, SANTA GLARA, a city government ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,'' AND LOSS ,OF 13 entity,' FEDERAL BUREAU OF ) CONSORTIUM. INVESTIGATION, a federal government ) 14 , entity, SANFRANCISCO POLICE } DEPARTMENT, TOWN OF SAN FRANCISCO, a ' ) 15 city government entity, Earl. Sanders, ) an individual, DUBLIN POLICE ) DEPARTMENT, TOWN OF DUBLIN, a city } 16 government entity, ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF, a county government entity, ) 17 CONTRA COSTA: COUNTY SHERIFF, COUNTY } OF CONTRA COSTA, a county government } 3.8 entity,' GENERAL 1140TORS'-CORPORATION, ) et. al., an affiliates, Michael ) 19 Sprinkle, an individual, and Does 1- ) 34, inclusive, } 20 Defendant's 21 PLAINTIFF, SUBMITS THIS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, WHEREFORE suppling the corrected. identity of Michael' Sprinkle, an individual and 22 an employee of the General motors Corporation, et. al. , located at the GMC Truck Center in Oakland, CA. at the time of the implication of 23 Plaintiff for kidnapping. PLAINTIFF, adds.''the,SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND THE TOWN OF SAN 'FRANCISCO, A CITY GO'VEMMUT" ENTITIY, 24 AN EARL SANDERS, ;ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE, an individual, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY! SHERIFF, CO'UN'TY OF CONTRA COSTA, as DEFENDANTS WITHIN HE 25 HISTORISIS OF THIS POISINOUS TREE OF DEFAMATION AND SLANDER OF PLAINTIFF. CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, WRONGFUL TERMINATION, DEFAMATION 1 1 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 2' 1. Defendant's: Lam Research Corporation, et. 'al. , "Lane ''Cross, a 3 individual," Fremont Police Department, Town of 'Fremont, a city goverment entity, Applied Materials;.Corporation, et. al. , Santa 4Clara Police Department, Town Of Santa Clara, a city government entity, Dublin Police Department, Town of 'Dublin, a 'city 5' government entity, are and at all times herein mentioned was and is the local law enforcement entities governed by the Alameda 6 County Sheriff, a county government entity. The Federal Bureau Of Investigation, governed by the United 7 States Federal Government, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges ;that at all times herein-mentioned defendant 8' Federal Bureau Of Investigation, is the acting Federal Law Enforcement Agency of The United States Federal Government. 9 General Motors Corporation, et. , al. and its affiliates., Michael Sprinkle, an individual, acting employee of the GENERAL MOTORS 10 CORPORATION, Town of Detroit, Michigan. PLAINTIFF, alleges that Earl Sanders, acting Assistant Chief Of Police of the Town Of San 11 Francisco, 'investigated Plaintiff in Dublin, CA. through the direction of Michael R.ustigan, SFSU Criminology Instructor in 12 1993. -PLAINTIFF,' asserts and believes that at the time of Earl Sanders investigative actions in Dublin, CA. Earl. Sanders was .the 13' acting Chief Investigator for the San Francisco Police Department, WHEREFORE, Within the boundaries and jurisdictions, of 14 the Town Of San Francisco, CA. PLAINTIFF, alleges that on Feb, 2, 2001, 'Plaintiff was illegally detained on a CA. Vehicle Code 15 violation and arrested by the Danville Police Department,' acting city government law enforcement for the Town Of Danville, CA., 16 FURTHERMORE, governed by the CONTA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF, WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. 17 PLAINTIFF, is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein-mentioned defendant's Lam Research 18 Corporation, establishment is within the City of Fremont, Ca.,,, of Alameda County and Applied Materials 'Corporation County Of Santa 19' Clara,' Ca. jurisdiction. PLAINTIFF, is informed and .believes and thereon alleges that defendant Lane Cross, an individual was an 20' employee of Lam Research on Oct.. 9th. 2000. Plaintiff, alleges that Lane Cross is the person responsible for sexual' harassment 21 and distribution of nude photos of Plaintiff at the workplace.' Plaintiff, alleges and believes that an Applied Materials: 22' Corporation' employee or former employee is responsible for defamation at the workplace of Plaintiff on Oct'. 2 2000 at Lam 23 Research Corporation, ;.4650 'Cushing Parkway, Fremont,' Ca. Plaintiff, subsequently resulting in Plaintiff's termination from 24' Lam Research on Jan. 3, 2001. Plaintiff, asserts that the information' supplied by that person could only have 'come from the 25 plaintiff's' previous employer or the 'FBI, and that the true identity of' that' entire defendant here on 'mentioned is not known. Plaintiff, is informed and 'believes and thereon alleges that CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, WRONGFUL TERMINATION, DEFAMATION - 2 I Michael Rustigan, SFSU Professor, harassed Plaintiff at Applied Materials Corporation in 1995, for the implication of killing' 2Matthew Flores a supervisor shot in the parking lot at AMAT, a unsolved murder at the time of implication. Plaintiff, alleges 3 that the Santa Clara Police followed Plaintiff on the morning and afternoon of that implication from Michael Rustigan, FURTHERMORE, 4 contacting the EBI and interviewing Michael Johnston, San Francisco FBI Agent about Plaintiff's character and;implications. 5 Plaintiff, alleges that the FBI, and Santa Clara Police, " SFSU Campus Police, SFPD of San Francisco, suppressed the evidence and 6 malicious actions of Michael Rustigan and Earl Sanders in 1993 in Dublin, CA. and '1995 at Applied' Materials... FURTHERMORE, setting 7 the stage for destroying Plaintiff's' credibility at the workplace. Plaintiff,r= alleges that Applied Materials employees 8 violated Plaintiff's 4t'., 5th. Amendment civil rights to the Constitution at the workplace in 1995, subsequently resulting in 9 Plaintiff's termination from Applied'Materials after the two year civil »suit istatue expired in April 1997 and further violated 10 Plaintiff's attorney client privileges with Carl Lindstrom, Esq. Plaintiff, 'alleges and believes' that Michael Sprinkle, an 11 employee of the General Motors Corporation CMC Division, at the time of the offense, was the individual whom implicated Plaintiff 12 for kidnapping Ilene Misheloff, of Dublin, Ca. Plaintiff,' alleges that Michael Sprinkle was recently involved in=a hit-an-run 13' crosswalk accident in Dublin, CA. and was;admitted to the San Ramon Talley Rehabilitation Hospital to recover from his 14' suspicious and timely accident while crossing the street in front of Crown Chevrolet, just weeks after the General Motors 15' Corporation was informed that Plaintiff was now aware of the true perpetrators of the implication.: Plaintiff, alleges that Bob 16 Stockberger, Jon Penner, Kathleen Goldberg, David Lorden 'defamed Plaintiff at the San Ramon Unifed' School District in 1999 while 17' employed with the San Ramon Valley High School,' in Danville. Plaintiff, asserts that this action subsequently resulting in 18 Plaintiff's' temporary contract and wrongful termination after two months of service, WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays to this Superior 19'' Court Of California, Alameda County to amend this complaint when the true names of the defendants are 'exposed through discovery. 20 2. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities' of 21 defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, whether individual,': corporate, public, and associate or otherwise and 22' therefore, sue these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their :true names 23 and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the defendants 24 designated herein as a DOE is in some manner negligently responsible' for the occurrences and injuries alleged herein, and 25 that Plaintiff's injuries as herein alleged were proximately caused by that negligence. Plaintiff,' alleges that a Dublin Police Officer heard Linda 'Meyers scream in a mantic: rage' while CIVIL 'RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, WRONGFUL TERMINATION, DEFAMATION - '3 1 involved in a traffic accident report with Plaintiff, on January 28, 1994. Plaintiff, asserts and believes that the Dublin Police 2 covered up the investigation and that an unknown entity told Linda Meyers a former teacher of Ilene Misholoff that Plaintiff 3 was the kidnapper. Plaintiff, alleges that Linda Myers truly believed that Plaintiff was going to kill her 'daughter as well 4 during that traffic accident in Dublin. Plaintiff, alleges that in Juane 1998, Linda Meyers fled the`State of California to avoid 5 testimony in court, during Plaintiff's lawsuit against Michael Rustigan, SFSU Professor. Plaintiff, asserts that within the same 6 month, Earl Sanders, AssistantChief of Police in San Francisco supplied written denial to the' State Attorney General's Office. 7 FURTHERMORE, Michael Ru€stigan, lied under oath in deposition.'' :Deputy Attorney' General, Paul Hammerness'asked Plaintiff under 8 oath in deposition, "What were the exact reasons that General Motors terminated your employment in 1.989." Wherefore, suggesting ! g that ;.Paul Hammerness' had knowledge that. General Motors was the true perpetrators of Plaintiff's FBI investigation for 10 kidnapping. 11 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants was the agent 12 or officer of the remaining defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged,; was acting within the course and scope of 13 such agency and with the permission and consent of his or her codefendants. Plaintiff, alleges that he is defending himself 34 from civil rights violations generated by the Danville Police Department, Town of Danville, and the Contra County Sheriff on 15 Feb. 2, 2001 in the Town of Danville. Plaintiff, asserts that he has retain an attorney appealing the action and suppressed the 16 evidence from the Danville Police Dispatch Tapes, that clearly state that Plaintiff was illegally stopped and framed by an 17 unknown entity whom called "911" the evening of Plaintiff's arrest. Plaintiff, has retained a criminal attorney to appeal the 18 arrest in 'Superior Court, Walnut Creek, CA. on Nov'. 5, 2001. 19 4.Plaintiff has filed this complaint, inclusive the DUES with the County of.Alameda, Superior Court of California as informed and 20 believes and thereon alleges that the Federal, State and local law enforcement defendant's acted outside the course and scope of 21 their employment and duties as employees and officers of the laws that govern their duties..' Plaintiff, alleges that this 22 investigative cover-up, suggests in itself law enforcement harassment and abuse of Plaintiff's civil rights. 23 5. Plaintiff is informed:and believes and thereon :alleges that 24 the damages suffered and about to incur as a result of the acts, omissions and conduct of the defendants, and each of them, 25 exceeds the jurisdictional amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) . CIVIL RI43HTS VIOLATIONS, WRONGFUL TERMINATION, DEFAMATION - 4 I� 1 WHEREFORE, plaintiff praysjudgment as hereinafter set forth 2 F'I'RST CAUSE OF ACTION WRONGFUL TERMINATION 3 CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS 4 6. Plaintiff, incorporates each and every paragraph of the 5 General Allegations of this complaint as if fully set forth 6 herein.. Plaintiff, asserts and believes that his hiring 7 process at Lam Research on June 3, 2000 was foiled by an 8 outside entity. Plaintiff, alleges that during his "New Hire 9 Orientation"` Plaintiff attended a Human Resources Seminar with 10 twenty-nine other new hires. Plaintiff, alleges that during 11 the introduction phase on the first morning, he was singled 12 out and excluded from receiving a New 'Hire Benefits and Salary 13 Contract. Plaintiff, alleges that the Human Resource Director 14 at that meeting told Plaintiff in front oftwenty-nine new 15 hires, that Plaintiff was a `"special case" and that he would 16 receive: his information at a later date. Plaintiff, asserts 17 16 that he did not sign any documents during the two-day orientation. Plaintiff, alleges that he did not sign an "At- 1 Will" contract or the "Security Information Act Contract" as 20 did the twenty-nine new hires. Plaintiff, alleges that he had 21' to wait one week to receive any documents from Human ,Resources 22' and that he only received a Benefits Statement that did not 23 bear Lara Research's stationary. Plaintiff, alleges that an 24 unknown entity inside Lam Research supplied' derogatory 25 information about Plaintiff or an outside entity entered Lam CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, WRONGFUL TERMINATION, ''DEFAMATION - 5 1 Research, so as to assassinate Plaintiff s reputation and foil , 2 his employment possibilities. Plaintiff, alleges that during 3 his entire six months of hire, he never met with a Human 4 Resource representative to 'correct and sign the necessary and 5 standard .forms required by Lam Research's hiring policy. 6 7. In or about the morning of Oct. 200. 2000, Plaintiff, alleges and 7 witnessed'a blonde woman 'holding a folder in her arms and 8 standing on the second floor of CA-1, as Plaintiff entered 9 Building CA-1. Plaintiff, alleges this person a unknown entity 10 entered and defamedPlaintiff to his peers and Supervisor's at 11 his place of employment at, Lam Research Corporation, 4650 12 Cushing Parkway, Building CA-1, located within the town of 13 Fremont, Ca. and presiding within the County of Alameda, 14 California. Plaintiff, alleged and witnessed that on the same 15 morning in or about 10:20 ,AM, all of Plaintiff's peers and co- 16 workers were assembled within the confines of 'Training ' 17 Supervisor, John 5ibiski 'office for consultation. Plaintiff, 18 alleges that he was not asked ,,to attend this session and 19 assembly. FURTHERMORE, Plaintiff has an 'email' from George 20 schisler., Esq. that admits to :supplying that information at 21 Plaintiff's interview with physiatrists in Dec. 2000. 22 23 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION SEXUAL HARRASSMENT, 24 DEPAMATION, INTENTIONAL 'INFLICTION' OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 25 8. Plaintiff, alleges that in or 'about' Oct. ' 9, 2000, Lane Crass, an employee of Lam Research Corporation and. co"worker,of Plaintiff, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, WRONGFUL TERMINATION, DEFAMATION 6 I supplied, displayed, and installed nude photos of Plaintiff on. La 2 Research Corporations Intranet, Worldwide. Plaintiff, alleges and 3 witnessed that on Oct. 9th. 2000 on or about 10:00 AM, defendant, 4 Lane Cross was walked off the property of Lam Research by Greg 5 Acton and subsequently terminated for this illegal act. 6 9. Plaintiff, alleges that the nude photo's displayed Plaintiff 7 masturbating within the privacy and confines of his home, 8 located and positioned on 'six acres within the County Of Contra 9 Costa, California. Plaintiff, alleges and believes that no form 10 of nude photographs of Plaintiff ever existed before or has 11 Plaintiff ever permitted, supplied, posed or given-permission to 12 photograph Plaintiff in the nude for public display. Plaintiff, 13 alleges and asserts that he was told by Officer Scott Sanders of 14 the Fremont Police, to contact the Contra Costa County Sheriff as is well and file a 'trespassing report. Plaintiff, asserts that he 16 called the Contra Costa County Sheriff twice and twice they 17 arrived at Plaintiff's home and: refused to take a report. in 18 quoting the last Officer's statements upon verbal contact with 19 Plaintiff, "If you want us to take a;report, show us the 'pictures 20 otherwise its just hear say. Besides, its not illegal to 21 photograph your neighbor if they make themselves availablel" 22 Plaintiff, 'asserts that he hired Ilson New, Esq. Of San 23Francisco, to protect Plaintiff's civil rights in 1999 against 24' Mr. Mays, acting Contra Costa County Sheriff. Sheriff Mays, was 25' asked to resign from his pest by Warren Ruff, thus avoiding Plaintiff's wrath in court .. CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, WRONGFUL TERMINATION, DEFAMATION - 7 1 10. Plaintiff, alleges that the Lam Research Corporation and its 2 employee's suppressed the 'alleged photos of Plaintiff, so as to 3 protect themselves from legal ramifications. Plaintiff, asserts 4 and alleges that Lam Research could not suppress the defamation 5 and slander and';embarrassment from his ccs-workers and peers that 6 followed in the months to come. 7 8 11. Plaintiff, alleges that he tried to 'amend his relationship with 9 his Supervisor's and peers, but failed to suppress the slander. 10 Plaintiff, asserts that in or about Dec. 5th. 2000, Plaintiff 11 learned from a co-worker that the General Motors Corporation was 12 responsible for, generating the implication and character 13 assassination of Plaintiff to the authorities. Plaintiff, asserts 14 that this implication forkidnapping was generatedso as to 15 destroy Plaintif'f's ability to testify in court as an expert' 16 witness, engaged in civil litigation against General motors 17 products within the scopeof a' class action lawsuit for 18 committing fraud against the American Motoring Public, with the 19 Norm 'Taylor Law Firm in Glendale, CA. 20 12. Plaintiff, alleges that Lam Research Corporation Changed. their 21 URL Address, held a general Supervisor's meeting company-wide in 22 CA-1, to suppress further harassment and; slander of Plaintiff by 23 co-workers, only after Plaintiff filed his complaint about 24 continuing sexual harassment from his peers. Plaintiff, alleges 25 that on Monday ;morning Oct. 9th. Prior to Plaintiff's arrival the nude photos appeared on the company intranet worldwide and CIVIL RIGHTS 'VIOLATIONS, WRONGFUL TERMINATION, DEFAMATION - 8 1 numerous slanderous comments spread throughout the company. 2 Students of Plaintiff's from Italy, Germany and France saw the 3 photos and=made slanderous comments. Plaintiff, alleges that 4 employees whom readily visited Plaintiff Ia home and participated 5 in Plaintiff's first grape harvest in September, verbally refused 6 to ever making a return visit. Furthermore, Plaintiff received 7 numerous slanderous remarks from Oct. 9th'. Through December 15th S Christmas Break. 9 13. Plaintiff, alleges that on Dec. 3rd. '2000, Plaintiff advertised 10 and supported a Christmas Party at his place of residence for his 11 co-workers, so as to'reunite the group and amend the defamation 12 and character assassination. Plaintiff, asserts that within the 13 scope of that advertisement, he received negative responses from 14 ;the individuals whom visited in Sept. 2000. Plaintiff, asserts 15 that he did attract four co-workers and their spouses. During the 16 Dec. 3rd. 2000 Christmas Party,; Plaintiff was asked what happened 17 at Applied Materials and how long did Applied'Materials 18 "Blackballed" Plaintiff from returning to employment. 19 20 THIRD CRUSE OF ACTION 21 NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF 'EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 22 14. Plaintiff,' alleges that on Sept. 30th. 2000, a' co-worker'Victor 23 Monson and his daughter assisted Plaintiff with his harvested 24 grape and bottling efforts. During that visit, Victor Monson'-s 25 daughter asked Plaintiff 'what were the exact reasons that Plaintiff left Applied Materials. Plaintiff, alleges that Lard CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, WRONGFUL TERMINATION, DEFAMATION 9 1 Research is negligent in employer, employee relationship by not 2 informing Plaintiff of defamatory information. WHEREFORE, 3 Plaintiff, concludes that the end results were emanate, ' 4 termination. 5 15. Plaintiff, alleges that on Dec'. 14th. 2000, Plaintiff was asked to 6 submit to an interview with two hired, contracted physiatrists to 7 evaluate Plaintiff for being dangerous and subject Plaintiff to 6 questions about his Education and past employment and: gun 9 ownership. Plaintiff', asserts that at that interview, Lam 10 Research Corporate Attorney, George Schisler supplied information 11 that Plaintiff's alleged character assassination was brought to 12 Lam Research Training Department on Oct.` 2, 2000. Plaintiff, " 13 alleges that Pat Body, Training Managers Administrative' 14 Assistant, labeled Plaintiff as being dangerous because she 15 viewed a firearm within the confines of Plaintiff's home by 16 accident. FURTHERMORE, Plaintiff asserts that Pat Body knew that 17 Plaintiff was an American Hunter and a NRA Member. 'Plaintiff, 18 alleges that on. the evening of his interview in December, Pat 19 Body,denied having anything to do with creating to interview.. 20 Plaintiff, asserts that his Supervisor David Jenkins told 21 Plaintiff on his last day of employment that Pat Body was 22 responsible for the ;interview. Plaintiff, alleges that this 23 interview event and the questions derived, from that event, 24 suggests that outside information entered. Lam Research and 25 exposed Plaintiff's past history with Applied Materials:. CI'V'IL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, :WRONGFUL TERMINATION, DEFAMATION 10 1 16. Plaintiff, alleges that on Dec. 11, '`2000 the Fremont Police was 2 called to Building CA-1 to speak with security about Plaintiff's 3 allegations of sexual harassment. Plaintiff, alleges that his co- 4 workers witnessed this event and during that sage day, Lam 5 Research had a general managers meeting to attempt to suppress 6 the slander and defamation of Plaintiff. 7 17. Plaintiff, alleges that his interviews with security officer Rick 8 Orloff, generated information that Lam Research believed that 9 Lane Cross; received the Photos from employees of Applied 10 Materials Corporation. Plaintiff, asserts that Mr. Orloff asked 11 Plaintiff if he knew who at AppliedMaterials might have ties and 12 connections to 'Lane Cross'. Plaintiff, asserts that Mr. Orloff 13 entered Plaintiff's office at Lam Research and suggested showing 14 Plaintiff false information documented in a folder on why the is Fremont Police arrived on Dec. 11, 2000 16 18. Plaintiff, alleges that on Dec. 19`"'. 2000, he made an attempt. to 17 file 'a police report with the :Fremont Police Department, and;was 18 denied the opportunity to do so by, Officer Benny Cox. #1922. 19 Plaintiff, alleges that Officer Cox stated in quote, "We can't 20 tell whether you gave them permission to'take` the photos or not 1 and our department does not even have a penalcode to address 22 this issue S" Plaintiff, suggests that this comment 'alone asserts 23 that the Fremont Police had knowledge that photos were taken`,and 24 displayed: at Lam Research on the morning'.of Oct. 9th. 25 19. Plaintiff, alleges that he had to return for a' secorid time tothe Fremont Police Department 'to request the filing of a report. CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, WRONGFUL TERMINATION, DEFAMATION 11 1. Plaintiff, alleges that officer Scott Sanders, #2630 met with 2 Plaintiff and took his statement and filed a report #0107.12037. 3 Plaintiff, alleges that this second visit and consultation with 4 officer Sanders was indeed 180 Degrees in attitude from his 5 previous attempt to file with officer Cox'. Plaintiff, alleges that 6 officer Sanders suggested in quote, "These corporations always 7 find ways to cover up things like this, and slander runs rampant 8 very fast through the employees." Plaintiff, disclosed the turn of 9 events to Officer Sanders, and the Officer told Plaintiff that a 0 whereabouts/search was suggested by 'Lam Research to locate 11 Plaintiff, two days prior to Christmas Break. 12 20. Plaintiff, asserts that on Jan. 2rO. 2001,, Plaintiff was 13 interviewed and set-up by his supervisors, David Jenkins and 14 Training Manager,Manager, .Sack Boniface and was placed on disciplinary is action for allegations of broadcasting the recent turn of events 26 of slander and defamation and sexual harassment by his co-workers.' 17 Plaintiff, alleges that within that meeting, David Jenkins and 18 Jack 'Boniface told Plaintiff that they did contact the Fremont 19 Police to perform a search for his whereabouts in Dec. 2©00, 20 because they had concerns: for Plaintiff's safety. 21 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 22 FINANCIAL''11URHSS 23 21. Plaintiff, alleges that on Jan 3"d. 2001 Plaintiff was asked to 24 visit Human Resources, within that visit Plaintiff was terminated 28 from employment. Plaintiff, alleges; that David Jenkins and Ms. ;Simms of Duman Resources performed the termination and that Ms. CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, WRONGFUL 'TERMINATION, DEFAMATION - 12 1 Simms stated in quote, "We have proof that you violated the 2 disciplinary action." 3 22. Plaintiff, asserts and can 'prove that his job performancewas 4 excelling and his employee co-worker relationships were sound, 5 prior to Oct. 21°`x. 2000. Plaintiff, alleges that the issues and: 6 comments that transpired between supervisors and co-workers, were 7 generated from Applied Materials employees, a prier employer of 8 Plaintiff's. Plaintiff, alleges 'that ''he never met a -Human' Resource 9 manager until the day of his termination Jan. 3, 2001. 10 23. Plaintiff, asserts that the questions generated by the contracted 11 physiatrists, line up'with"predisposed information from the 12 Applied Materials Corporation. Plaintiff, alleges that employees 13 of the Applied Materials Corporation "Blackballed" Plaintiff from 14 employment for three years'. 1'5 24. Plaintiff, alleges that the unknown identity of the blonde woman. 16 that entered Lam Research on Oct. 2, 2000, was 'employed or 17 associated with Applied Materials Corporation, and displayed 18 photos of Plaintiff at that meeting. 19 25. Plaintiff, asserts and was' told by a`Lam Research employee on Oct. 20 9t�h, 2000 that he could not believe what he saw:.of Plaintiff on the 21 Intranet Web Site that morning, grasping his face with 22 embarrassment. Plaintiff, alleges that employees of Applied 23 Materials Corporation generated his wrongful termination and 24 sexual harassment at Lara Research. Plaintiff, asserts that in 25 1991-98 six law firms were told not to use Plaintiff's expert CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, WRONGFUL "TERMINATION`, DEFAMATION 13 I witness services from the Technical Advisory Service For 2 Attorneys, by Applied Materials employees. ` 3' 26. Plaintiff, alleges that Security Chief, Greg Acton at Lam 'Research 4 knew of Plaintiff's prior history and employment at Applied 5' Materials and was responsible for generating a "Building Alert 6 Paster"` of Plaintiff prior to Plaintiff's wrongful terminationat 7 Applied Materials, when Greg Acton was employed by AMAT. 8' 9 27. Plaintiff, alleges that an employee of Applied Materials informed 10 Phil Tudor, Esq. of Crosby, Heafy, Roach and May, in 1998, that 11' Plaintiff was acquitted of a criminal charge in .1993 in Dublin, 12 CA. Wherefore, Phil Tudor, Esq. refused to use Plaintiff's' expert 13 witness service at trial and FURTHERMORE, notified Technical 14' Advisory Service For Attorney's in Blue Bell, Pa. , a contractor is for Plaintiff's personal business. Subsequently,`, and permanently 16 damaging Plaintiff's ability to obtain further employment as an 17' expert witness with TASA. 18', 19 28. Plaintiff, alleges that during his personal' search for any 20 criminal record within five 'counties and seven local Police 21 ' Agencies, including the FBI, Plaintiff, asserts that he was 22 ' steered and detained for over four hours by the Alameda County 23 Sheriff's Office, during December 1998 while submitting to:a 24 ' requested electronic fingerprint scan and search`: by its Oakland, 2S ' Ca.. Office. Plaintiff, alleges that he discovered from a retained attorney that the 'Police Departments do not' have' to take a "persons CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, WRONGFUL TERMINATION, DEFAMATION`" - 14 I fingerprints to see if that person has a criminal record; 2 THEREFORE, Setting the stage for departmental abuse of Plaintiff's 3 civil rights seeking information. Plaintiff, alleges and will 4 submit:written proof from his personal physician in 'Dublin, CA. 5 that Plaintiff's entire medical history for- 10 years disappeared 6 from a` looked security facility in Livermore, CA. and Plaintiff's 7 computer records were also missing. 8 FIp= CAUSE OF ACTION 9 LOSS OF CONSORTIUM 10 29. Plaintiff, alleges and believes that some unknown entity sent 11 Ervin Weber', an investigator and former D.O.J. agent to the 12 Alameda County Sheriff's Office to confront Plaintiff's and to his 13 home so as to discover what evidence Plaintiff had to back up his 14 claims. Plaintiff, asserts that he willingly gave Mr. Weber i5 evidence that supports the investigative claims. Plaintiff, 16 alleges that he 'received word back from Mr. Weber that the FBT 17 made a mistake and covered it up. WHEREFORE, resulting in le Plaintiff's loss of spouse', normal relationship with his family 19 and friends. FURTHERMORE, resulting in this continuous slander and 20 defamation and unemployment of 'Plaintiff's last five employers, 21 General Motors, Saab Cars, Inc. , Applied Materials, San Ramon High 22 School, and Lam`Research. Plaintiff, asserts and believes that he 23 has the legal right to be employed in .America and perform as any 24 other American in society, within the scope of a harassment free 25 workplace. Plaintiff, asserts that he has suffered emotionally*, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, WRONGFUL TERMINATION, DEFAMATION is 1 spiritually, physically, mentally and financially from this 2 poisonous tree of character assassinations. 3 4 30. Plaintiff, pleas to this court for mercy and due justice under the S laws governed by this court. Plaintiff, alleges and asserts that 6 he has` obtain written permissionto sue Lam Research Corporation 7 from the EEOC, of Oakland, CA. wham firmly believes that 8 Plaintiff, was sexually harassed and wrongfully terminated from 9 Lam Research Corporation on Jan. 3rd. 2001, Plaintiff, will seek to 10 amend this c6mplaint here on when future need dictates revision. 11 12 Plaintiff, 13 Damenick S. Clemente Signe 14 Dated. Oct. 23, 7061 1S 16 17 18 19 0 21 22 23 24 25 CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, WRONGFUL TERMINATION, DEFAMATION - 16 ; CA-1 e dy7 t Pohcei�::: -- of Dub n AWmia f YF y}. .Y j P Y � i $9 N, k Y! � xF z ' �x r > .r 0 0 Ilene was last seen in Dublin, Califon ILENE E M EL O FF on Monday,January 30, 1989-She was D.O.B. 3-12-75 Eyes: Brawn wearing a charcoal.gray pullover polo Age: 20 Height: 5'3" sweater,a horizontiby striped pink and Hair: Brown Weight: 115 lbs. gray skirt,black low-top Leda„ and Braces on teeth;, carrying a dark blue back paw' Cos* Numben 89-0.9253 NCiC Numbers lM.342301497 r 355-02-1? 17: 1 �t HEAD�I TER5 1.0 275 5577 P.02/03 TECMICAL ADVISORYSERVICE FOR ATTORNEYS A Division of Technical Advisory Service,Inc. December 2, 1 998 Dometuck S.Clemente 69oo I'b2naston Road; pleasentM CA 9458$ Re: 12/01/98 Conversation with Jeffrey Svestka Dear Mr.Clemente; Following is an outline of the telephone conversation I had with Jeffrey Svestka, Imuraance Adjuster for Federated Insurance,'on December 1, 1998. This letter has been prepared pursuant to your request. I isaitiany contacted Mr. Svestka on December"1, 1998, to clarify who should receive the final bill for''Domenick Clemente"s services on the;Izcnirian Roofing Case. W Svesrka indicated dissaatisfaction with Mr. Clemente's services for two reasons.' First, he started that the expert ;never provided any actual conclusions. I asked Mr. Svestka if he had requested a report from the expert. He replied that he ball requested and received a report but that it failed to+offer any conclusions drawn by m the evidence. second, the adjuster indicated that he felt that TA.SA should do a' more thorough investigation into experts' backgrounds! I asked what prontpted this comment and W. Svestka responded that some legal troubles in the expert's I past were discovered-during their investigation of his background. I asked him.ltet elaboxat+e dna meatnn el troubles" and he stated that he was it rmeo that the expert had beon; acquits of a clear veiatict. made rndaisinformab second hand, Pram the attoarne y,Fhillip' dor,who w lti ling tthc cases. Mr. Svestka did Clot prnvide more detailed infoi nnatiox as to what the cr=i nal allegation was or when it appeared on the expert 1 6 record I explained to the adjuster that TASA docs not to that kind of background check on experts, but if we are informed of pertinent information like this, we do mote it in the oTe Ws file. Friar to ending the conversation with Juts. Svestka, I made an offer to reduce the final bill, n by $76=70, asking the balance due S300,00. I snide this offer in an,attempt to plate the client. The reduction offer was gratefully accepted. (This reduction 'does not erect the experts portion:) mesadguerters: im DeKalb Pike a Blue Bell,Pennsylvania 194224853 • 610.275.8772 •.FAX 000.329-8272 United States and Canaria-.800=523.2319 •United Kingdom:080049-1282 a-mail:experts0tes" t.com*'www.tatanst.com nst.com ENDO� RSE�D' F Co�trr►tE6�trtot Cvtrrt LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT F HANDELMAN Barr Fran 2 Scott F. Handelman, Esq. CB#124674 QUI '' 540 Lennon Lane, Suite 700 ' 1999 3 walnut Creek, CA 54598 ALAN CARlSON, Clerk (.92.5) 280-2500 4 (925) 280-2525 (fax) �Y: YIC3C7Jbepu Is5 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY ANIS COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DO ENICK SAMUEL CLEMENTE, CASE NO: 301847 9 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 10 Plaintiff DAMAGES FOR SLANDER; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF 11 vs EMOTIONAL., DISTRESS, NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMO'T'IONAL 12 MICHAEL R,USTIGAN, and DOES' 1 DISTRESS through 50, inclusive, ' 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 COMES NOW plaintiff DOMENICK SAMUEL CLEMENTE and alleges: 17 1$ GENERAL 'ALLEOAT-1 S 19 1 . Defendant Michael Rustigan is and at all times herein 20 mentioned was an .individual. Plaintiff is informed and believes 21 and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioneddefendant 22 resided in the City and County of San Francisca and/or the 3 County of Sonoma 24 2. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities 25 of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 26 whether individual corporate, associate or otherwise, and, 27 therefore, sues these defendants by such fictitious names.` 28 Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is`` further' informed Rol. J=an T', np&0n FAX NO. 925 249 '4309 E.��DOfiSE� FILED ALAmr--DA COLIN'i'Y 1 DOMENICK S, CLEMENTE awo johnstan Road Nov L 4 tyH 2 Pleasanton,CA 8468$ r CLERK OF THESUFERtdR COUP-T 3 in Pro Per By p 1rI W 6s- SUPERIOR OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR TNS COUNTY OF ALAMEDA l S NORTHERN DMSIOi+I O ' SNICK SAMUEL CLEMENTE � Cie No. g } COMPLAINT FOR SLANDER; INTENT10NAL: vs. } INFLICTION OF EMC 1,0NAL DISTRESS; i0 ) NEGLIGENT INFLICTICN al`EMOTIONAL PHI TU RI anIndlvirival,C MY- 1 } DISTRESS s i HPAFE'f', ROACH& MAY,a Professional ) Corporaticr4 JEFF SVESTi . an individual, ' 12FF-DraRATED INSURANCE, an unknown ) i ,entity, arnd'Gorr 1-60, incltwr". } L'�efendarits. ) 1416 Plainfif'F DOMENICK S. CLEMENTE complains of defendants, and each of them, 1?' 8s follows: i FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION [Libel zo Piair is and at all times herein mentoned sin IndtVidual residing in the 21 County of AWm*oda. C 0bmie. }; z 2.'' PlalhtK is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant 2 24 OROSBY, HEAFEY, ROACH &MAY, a 'Professional Corpomtion {hereinafter 2$ "CROSSr or"d fen anr)an unknown ent ,y,'was tiding b�ssin�ss in the State of t 26 Callf0m a,with..its procipai pie of businest located in Oakland, Alameda County. 27MVM54C!NFRJMON 6F VOTCONALQtsTRESs'NP-13#t3CrYJWU:iIOM OF t+MCMONAL OWME85 t sF i 12•'21`96 TUE 16:38 [TX,'Rl NO S73I. frorin:lair Maw LSk To:6armeniac Csernent€ A2O1/2At;>u 1:37:2U W.. Pale Z of ,Q,'UPPLi MNT,A%. REPORT. Incident Number 9 8101018151 , Date 02/10198 Pagel On 332.!10198 at approximately 1800, D.A. investigator le#f Woo carne by the station to spear about the case.Woo told me that he recalled the incident in 1993/1994 with bold Rustigan and Clemente. Woo said, that Ru tigan told him that Clemente was a student In one of his Criminology classes. The incident began when Clements disagreed with Rust g n on a discussion topics in cuss. Rustigan Id,Clemente continuously interrupted him daring the oourse of the semester. Woo said, Clements told him that he thought Rustlgan was having him investigated by various law enforcement agencies. Clemente claimed Rustigan spoke to Earl Sanders, def of Homicide for SFPD and to the Chief of Dublin about hon. Woo said, Rustioan told him that he did speak to Senders about Clemente.Woo believes that sanders was the one who spoke to the Chief of Dublin,to inform him that Clemente was living in the area. When t spoke to Rustigan. on the phone on€V04196,he was adamant he did not talk to anytme about Clements. Rustigan wanted Woo to set up a meeting with Clemsirrte at UPD,to resorts;the problem. Clemente agreed to the meeting and the issue was resolved: i]isposition-i Pending investigative follow up 'Reporting Officer tar Nat far Pubic Intomation Approved by Star Date C. Olivet ? &njeant R #1()6`�`� t if Pt7ua bEpARTMEN7 CITY AND COUNTY OF ISAN FRANCISCO nOMS CAW HALL OF MM �St1 BRY141�IT S�itEET SM FUNCLSCO.<:AUF00414 94103 June 19, 1"8 To Whom It May Concern: In E-Mail sent to administrators at San Francisco State University on January 23 and January 24, 1998, Domenick S. Clemente alleges that f was contacted by Professor Michael Austigan concerning Mr. Clemente's behavior in a Criminology class during the F'sll of-1993. This is to confirm that Mr. Clemente's allegation is false. At no time dict Professor Rustigan contact me concerning Dominick S: Clemente. Sincerely, Assistant of of Police PEA-Me APPLIED MATERIALS Set 9• ,e CONFIDENTIAL BUILDING ALERT bftrofnc Coff"pandence TO:. Security StaffDATE: 03-27-97 FR: Greg'Acton RE: Domenick S. Clemente,Badge#;159251 *SPECIAL AT7ENTION CEN7X4L CAMPUS* Domenick S Clemente is an Applied employee in good standing out administrative'leave. He is not allowed in any Applied building. If this individual is observed on Applied property, immediately notify CEOC who will immediately contact Security MManagetment. Keep this in a location where it can be quiddy re&renced,but where it raon#W be viewed by Refer'any questions to: Jiro McMahon. CEOC'must page McMahon if this person attempts curry after hours or on weekends. at i Dist: All patml ws in binary " Paw an Down All Dies(to be placed in Bading Alert folder) , CE(X BWVRom Miclad Ckman Jim cMa�lrod lomeni+k Clemente OOD14045 f� 1 LAW,OFFICES OF SCOTT F. HANDELMAN Scott F. Handeltnatn,Esq., SBNN 124674 2 5+4Q L.iMM lane,Sulte 700 1 1aMut Creak,CA 94568' t Y 3 �f=2 (925)280-2525(fax) '47 4 Attorney for Plaintiff DOMENICK SAMUEL CLEMENTE 5 SUPERIOR'COURT OF CALIFORNIA,';CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 7 8 DOMENICK SAMUEL.CLEMENTE, j Case No. No.301847 9 Plaintiff, } PLAINTIFF`S ARBITRATION BRIEF', 10 vs,` } DATE: 112110 TIME: 6:3i)A'M.' MICHAEL.RUSTIGAN and Does 1-50 j ARBITRATOR:ANTHOW S. LEUIN 12 Deft ridw t . } } 13 } 14 : } 1s 16 1 s. AI EN1<OE FACTS 17 Plaintiff is DOMENICK SAMUEL.CLEMENTE. Defendant is ICHAEL l e RU TIG N. Defendant is a well known Bay Area criminologist and has been s 19 professor at Sats Francisco State University(SFSt1) since Fall 1993. Defendant often 20 appears in the media to comment upon various crimes, including murdors, rapes, 21 kidnappings, bombings, etc. Defendant has been commenting on and has been asked 22 to comment upw such events o r et k"'a decade. 23 Professor Rustigan received his Ph fit. in 1974. From 1974 to 1991 he taught at 2! 25 Sart'Jose State University. In tall 1993 defendant Rustigan offered a clan at SF'SU In 26 -Criminological Theory." Plaintiff needed to add a class to his tour"list. DefendaiWe 27 fi 2$ PLAINTIVF':S Zt XF ATION NAIEF From;L»w Of xes LItA To.[bmnkk G:wrmnte a)01/2W 1:37:26 c+<< St F'tcAttiCISC3 STATE 1TNIVER.SM POLICE' SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT l»rdettt Nnmbcx Bate g 21 1014 8 Pa,ael On 02/10/98 at;approximately IBM, D.A. Investigator Jeff Woo came by the station to speak mut the case.WOO told me that he recalled the incident In 149311994 With bath Flustigaan and Clernente. Woo said, that Rustigan told hien that Clemente was a student in one of,his Criminology classes. The incident began when Clemente disagreed with Rucstioan tett a discussion topics in class. Austigansaid, Clemerde continuously Interrupted``him during itte course of the senor.: Woo said,Clements told him that he thought Ruffin was having him Investigated by various taw enforcement agencies. Ctemerde clad Rurstigart ap(*e to Earl Sanders, Met of Homicide for SFPD and to the Chief of f. t"In about hien. Woo said, Rustipan told him that he slid speak to Sandem about Clemente.Woo believes that Senders was the one who spoke to tte Chief of Alin,to Inform him that Clemente was ting In the area.When 1 spoke to Rt"gaen on Phone on 02104/96,he was adamant he did not talk to anyone about Clemente. Faust an wanted Woo to set up a meeting with Clentiente at UPDW to resolve the problem. Clemente agreed to the meeting and the issue;was resolved. Disp€Ssit Pendkv Inivw igative follow up 1 Repartiag ofCiter Fat Not For 1'ubtic iatorymatioa Approved by Star Date C. Otivoet ? ;5t�aant��,t,aFFt#tOb`� ,���+� POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY AND CEJ U NTY OF SAN FkANC1SCO PNOMM 1.CAHILL HALL OF AS= ,• &SO BRYANT MEET SAN MANC15CO,CALIFORNIA 94103 FRED H LAU CHEF Of ; June 19 199$ To 'Whom It May Concern: In E-Mail sent to administrators at San Francisco State University on January 23 and January 24, 1998, Domenick S Clemente alleges that I;, was contacted by Professor Mich a el.Rustigan concerning Mr. Clemente's behavior in a Criminology class during the Fall of 1993. This is to confirm that Mr. Clemente's allegation is false. At'no time did Professor Rustigan contact me concerning Dominick S: Clemente. Sincerely, Al'�T Assistant of of Police PEA:me ruin A, .. �. ,. f 2 , r 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 DOMENICK SAMUEL CLEMENTE, 9 Plaintiff; No. C-01-4184 PJH 10 V. ORDER VACATING HEARING 11 LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION, et al., 12 Defendants: 13 14 TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD: 15 The court finds the motions to dismiss filed by defendants City of Fremont and 16 Contra Costa County appropriate for decision without oral argument as permitted by Civil 17 Local Rule 7-1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. See also Lake at Las Vegas' 18 Investors Group Inc. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d'724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991) 19 (holding that the court's consideration of the moving and opposition papers is deemed an 20 adequate substitute for a formal hearing), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 920 (1992).'Accordingly, 21 the hearing date for this.matter, previously scheduled for February 27, 2002, is hereby 22 VACATED. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: February, 2002 26 F-HYLVS J.'HAMILTON 27 United Stats District Judge, 28 Copies'mailed to counsel of record "Hearing.Not UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DOMENICK SAMUEL CLEMENTE, Case Number: C-01-4154 PEE Plaintiff, V. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. I,the undersigned,hereby certify that I am an employee of the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,Northern District of California. That on February 21,2002,I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies)of the attached,by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)hereinafter listed,by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies)into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's Office. Domenck Samuel Clemente Jon A. HeaberlinMichael C. Severian 6900 Johnston Road Rankin I,andsness Lande Serveran Pleasanton, CA 94588 Stock- 96 No. Third Street Suite 500 Stephen C. Tedesco' San Jose. CA 95112 Littler Mendelson,P.C. 650 California Street, 20th Fl. Chinha€yi Coleman San Francisco, CA 94108 United States Attorney's Office 450 Golden Gate Avenue Post Office Box 36055 Dana L. Soong San Francisco, CA 94102 Bertrand Fox Elliot&Colwell` 2749 Hyde Street Jeanine B. Nadel San Francisco, CA 94109 County Counsel Office of Alameda County Eileen R Ridley 1221 Oak Street, Suite 463 Oakland, CA 94612 Foley&Lardner One Maritime Plaza Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3404 s C-01-41 84 PJH: Certificate of Service for 2/21/02 Page 2 David B. Newdort City Attorney's Office City&County ofSan>Francisco Fox Plaza 1390Market Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94102-540$ Janet L. Holmes County of Contra Costa Deputy County Counsel 051 Pine Street 9th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Richard W. Wiekng, Clerk By: f Deputy Clerk 1 IN PRO PER t 2 INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF 6900 JOHNSTON ROAD 3 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 f 925-248-4505 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 DOMENI CIS: S. CLEMENTE, } Case No:: No. C01-4I.84 PJIi } g Plaintiff, } PLAINTIFF'S +OPPOSITION MOTION 10 } AND TO STRIKE DEFENDANT' S COUNTY Vis. } OF CONTRA COSTA AND CONTRA COST 11 } SHERIFF MOTION TO DISMISS LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION, at. al. , Lana } Cross, a individual, FREMONT POLICE } PURSUANT TO: CIVIL' L.R. 7-4 12 DEPARTMENT, CITY OF FREMONT, a city } FRCP 15 (C) (2) government entity, APPLIED MATERIALS S 2701 13 CORPORATION, at. al. , SANTA CLARA POLICE HEARING DATE: JAN. 27, 2002 DEPARTMENT, CITY OF SANTA CLARA, a city 14 government entity, FEDERAL BUREAU OF TIME: 9:QO AM INVESTIGATION, a federal government entity, PLACE: COURTROOM 3 15 SAN FRANCISCO` POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF 450 GOLDEN GATE AVE. SAN FRANCISCO, a city government entity, SAN FRANCISCO, CA. Earl Sanders, an individual, DUBLIN 16 POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF DUBLIN, a city PERSIDING. government entity, ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF, HONORABLE PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 17 a county government entity, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; e 18 county government entity, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, at. al. , an affiliates, 19 Michael Sprinkle, an individual, and noes 1-30, inclusive , Defendant's 20 21 22 PLAINTIFF, HER-EBY SETSFORTH THIS MOTION OF OPPOSITION AND TO STRIKE DEF DANT'S CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CONTRA. COSTA 23 SHERIFF NOTICE OF MOTION TO D I SMI S S PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDER COMPLAINT. PURSUANT FRCP 15 (C) (2),$ 2 701 PROVIDES' 24 RELATION BACK STATUE, WHEREF0 PLAINT IFF CAN SET FORTH AN INCLUDE GOVERNMENT ''PARTIES BROUGHT IN BY AMENDS vENT OF 25 COMPLAINT WRTGBT G AZLLER, Fed' Frac,P ra.Civil $1484, 1487. 1 "The parties knew or should have known that, but for a .mistake by the plaintiff concerning the proper identity of 2 the proper part7, the action would have been;brought against the government parties involved.'' 3 ' PLAINTIFF, SUBMITED A REQUEST TO THIS COURT FOR'A 4 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION REGARDING ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO PLAINTIFF'S HOME AND THE STOLEN "DISPATCH TAPE RECORDING" 5 THUS DESTROYING THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF A PENDING COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA COSTA 6 COUNTY, MARTINEZ. FURTHERMORE, ALLEGING THAT THE DEFENDANTS DANVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, TOWN OF DANVILLE UTILIZES THE 7 SERVICES OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SFZR= AS THE ACTING LAW ENFORCEMENT'. WHEREFORE, 'BY ASSOCIATION AND ACTS OF 8 014MSI S S I ON ON FEB. 2, 2001 IN THE TOWN OF DAVILLE PLAINTIFF WAS ALLEGALLY DETAINED FOR THE ABSENCE OF A VEHICLE LICENSE 9 PLATE ON HIS NEW FORD TRUCK, SUBSQUENTLY., ARRESTED FOR DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE. PLAINTIFF, ALLEGES THAT THE 10 LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT WITHIN THE EAST BAY, ENTERED HIS HONE AND INTERFERED 'WITH HIS ' ABILITY ' TO PROVE THAT THE DANVILLE 11 POLICE WERE TOLD TO DETAIN PLAINTIFF ON ROUTE HOME AND UT'IL I Z ING THE EXCUSE OF CA XFORNXA VEI3.I'CLE CODE 5200 TO 12 DETAIN PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF AL-LEMS THAT ON JAN. 10, '2002 IN SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, MARTINEZ; 13- PLAINTIFF, METAND CONFERED WITH CONTRA; COSTA COUNTY, JANET HOLMES, ESQ. AND THE PRESIDING JUDGE, FOR THE ISSUE' 14 CONFERENCE SET.. PLAINTIFF, ALLEGES THAT JANET HOLIES ADMITTED THAT THE ARRESTING'' OFFICER !.TOLD' HER THAT HE WAS 15 WAITING IN THE TOWN AND COUNTRY 'PARKING 'LOT FOR PLAINTIFF TO PROCEED ON THE SAN RAMON`VALIEY BLVD. IN ROUTE HOME. 16 PLAINTIFF, DEPOSED THE ARRESTING OFFICER ANIS HE DENIED THE AFOREMENTIONED,' PLAINTIFF'S CRIMINAL,' ATTORNEY DEPOSED' 17' THE ARRESTING OFFICER ON THE WITNESS STAND IN SUPERIOR COURT, WALNUT CREEK AND NEVER QUESTIONED THE OFFICER ABOUT 18 ' THE CONTENTS OF THE DISPATCH TAPE RECORDING THAT CLEARLY WAS IN THE HANDS OF HIS ATTORNE'Y. PLAINTIFF, ALLEGES THAT 15 THE PRESIDING JUDGE ON JAN. 30, ,'2002, KNEW THAT PLAINTIFF WAS SUPPLIED A SECOND REPLACEMENT DISPATCH TAPE RECORDING 20 FROM HIS CRIMINAL ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.' FURTHERMORE, PLAINTIFF STATED THAT THE SECOND TAPE'" WAS EDITED ANIS CENSORED FROM 21 THE ORIGINAL, SUGGESTING IN ITSELF A CONSPIRCEY BETWEEN PLAINTIFF'S RETAINED CRIMINAL ATTORNEY AND THE DANVILLE' 22 ' POLICE:; DEPARTMENT. WHEREFORE, SETTING THE STAGE FOR A 1112CMMN CORE OF O.PERA.TXVE FACTS" THAT CLEARLY DD40NSTRATE 23 THAT PLAINTIFF HAS SUFFERED FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT 'ABUSE TO HATE. FRCP I'15(C) (2),', Martell v. Trilogy, Ltd. Su ra 872 F2d 29 at 325. 25 PLAINTIFF, WHEREFORE OPPOSES DEFENDANT'S DISMISSAL ACTION' UNDER F.R.C VP.12 (b) (6) 1 DEFINITESTATEMENT OF FACTS 2 Plaintiff, asserts that within the jurisdiction of FRCP 15(c) (2) , Defendant' s request to time bar and dismiss 3 Plaintiff's causes of actions for Civil Rights Violations AND financial Duress, should be quashed by this court for the 4 continuous path'' of "RELATION BACK" can be established` with Plaintiff's filed paper "trail WITH THIS COURT OF 'LAW ENFORC MENT 5 ABUSE AND MISCONDUCT: 6' Pursuant FRCP 15 (c) (2) "Statue of limitations defending plaintiff's abilities to file a late govexrent. claim 7 has been established within the Mst amended cc= ;int out defendants' W. Erin- ` mentioning information about the Contra $ Costa Count' Sherif em .Ioee's actiofns. " [Rockett V. American Airlines, Inc. D.C. III>° 1973, 357 F. Supp. 11M ] 9 Plaintiff, alleges that he has suffered: from law 10 enforcement harassment since the winter of 1998, from the ;Contra Costa County Sheriffs personnel. Plaintiff, at that time had a 11 lawsuit filed against SFSU Professor Michael Rust gan, in the Superior Court Of California, Sart Francisco. Plaintiff, retained 12 Mr. Ilson New, Esq. to assist Plaintiff with ;his In Fro Per complaint after Plaintiff' s former spouse made her exit. 13 Plaintiff, asserts that his neighbor Mrs Bowers a former „C Parks ldilltary Policewoman" called 11911" for '-what she truly 14 believed was shotgun discharged bird: shot striking her trailer residence from Plaintiff' s legal' dove hunting. Plaintiff, states 15 that his factual description of the turn of events that day was sent to the Contra Costa County sheriff, by Mr. Ilson New, Esq. 16' and the conclusion generated the early retirement of Sheriff Mays. Plaintiff, alleges that within the next two weeks he 17 suffered from Sheriff helicopter abuse night .and day. Plaintiff, asserts that the Sheriff helicopters would use spotlights 18' through the ceiling' sky panels of his home at night. FURTHERMORE, during the day the helicopters would fly below 19` legal air space', directly at Plaintiff's front living roam picture window, then sharply veer upwards. 20 Plaintiff', will supply some information that led to this encounter with his neighbor the Bowers. Plaintiff, was 21 working in his vineyard'one fall afternoon in 1997. Plaintiff, observed Ms. Bowers son exit their drive way downhill at a very 22` dangerous speed,, WHEREFORE, placing the vehicle on two wheels' approaching a rollover at the bottom Johnston Road. Plaintiff, 23' knew that the occupants, both teenagers could have been killed. 24 Plaintiff, 'did the right thing and called Ms. Bowers. 25 1 Plaintiff, suffered for two weeks slanderous statements from Ms. Bowers teenager because he lost his ability 2 to drive. Plaintiff, alleges that Plaintiff was standing in his front yard '`of his home with his former spouse at the second 3 weeks end cif this teenagers verbal abuse, when this young man yelled`out ;of his truck window in quote, "Domeniczk the child 4 rabbet!" Wherefore, Defendants cannot rely upon immunity ty as a defense der, CA GOV. CODES Sec'. 810.8 through 895.6 [Brewer v. 5' Second Baptist Church of Los Angeles (1948) 197 P.2d 713, 32 C.A. 2d 791. 1 Plaintiff, asserts that some unknown entity entered 7 his neighborhood and informed his neighbors that Plaintiff was implicated for kidnapping in Dublin, Ca WHEREFORE, explaining 8 why Sheriff Mays told Plaintiff that he was considered dangerous, and the second Sheriff assisting Sheriff Mays that g very day said in quote, "'These ,p!2ple know too, about what happened in Dublin. " Plaintiff, asserts and suggests to this 10 court that :''tie conspiracy spiracy and cover up of lana enforcement, abuse is now over. Plaintiff, will protect himself and his civil 11''' rights in a court of law. Plaintiff, truly believes that no one is above the law, including law enforcement. [Frick v Merrihew 12 (1974) 116 'Cal., Rptr. 781,42 C.A. 3d. 319, 85 A.L.R.3d 1128. 13 "The privilege of'',immunity is lost ' if the publication is motivated by hatred or ill will toward the Plaintiff, or by 14 any cause other than the desire to ,protect the ,interest for which the ,privilege is given. " 15 Plaintiff, alleges that a local neighbor who is on 16 staff with the Contra Costa 'County Sheriff, entered Plaintiff's property for a what appeared to be a friendly chat. Plaintiff,' 17 was told by that sheriff that a select group of people were upset because Plaintiff removed his property from the seller' s 18 list. FMTHE ddDRE, within that same visit the sheriff'' told Plaintiff in quote, "Dom all your neighbors see, .is a cragy man 19 who owns guns. - r 20 Plaintiff, alleges that he has been harassed by the Danville Police' twice, once in the -fall of 1998, for driving 21 home from 'Meenars Traven" in Danville, on a country secondary road to his home. Plaintiff, states that the officer told 22 Plaintiff that he was stopped because he was swerving while driving on ;,a road that normally has continuous curves'. 23 Plaintiff, alleges that the "officer told Plaintiff toget out of his truck and perform field tests. Plaintiff, satisfied the 24 officer's andduring the conclusion upon departure, the officer slammed Plaintiff's drivers ''license in Plaintiff's chest and 25'' said in quote, "Go home ,I+lir. Clement!" 1 Plaintiff, suggests to this court that under Cal Gov. Cade, 821.6, Page 278, Sec. 11 "Malicious Prosecution" the 2 defendant's cannot use immtvii tyas a defense. 3 '11 alicious Prosecution" consists of initiating or procuring arrest and prosecution of another under lawful. process 4 but Erce malicious motives and without ,probable cause. " [Sullivan v. Los Angeles Count (1974) 117 al. tr. 241 12' 5 Cal. 3d 710, 527 P. 2d 865.1 6 CONCLUSION 7 Plaintiff, sets forth and has established grounds that clearly reflect that a conspiracy of law enforcement in the Bay 8 Area acted with malice and produced severe misconduct to the point of illegally entering Plaintiff's home and destroying 9 evidence of entrapment by the Danville Polio, on Feb. 2, 2001. Plaintiff, truly believes that if the truth about the 10 implication for kidnapping in Dublin, Ca. surfaced when it occurred, thousands of taxpayers dollars and law' enforcement 11 hours, could have been. avoided. FURTHMMt3RE the ' true perpetrators would 'havebeen brought to justice, and "the ;energy 12 wasted upon Plaintiff and his family could have been directed" towards the discovery efforts for the missing child. 13 Plaintiff, prays to this court to bring to justice the evil that has plagued Plaintiff's life. WHMF©RE, this court 14 must also realize that law enforcement has paid a price for being misled by this evil ford. 15 In closure, 114oney vs. Morality" 16 1 1e 1 20 Dated: Feb. 4 2002 Domen .ck S. Clemente 21 Signe 22 Plaintiff, �' 23 29 25 ra 1 IN PRO PER .. 7x � � INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF ": rx 3 5900 JOHNSTON ROAD PLEASANTON, CA 94588 5 925--2$8-4505 ? vt C,L � kl 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUNT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 DOMENICK S. CLEMEN'TE; } Casa No. : No. 001-4184 PJH 13 3 15 Plaintiff, }' PLAINTIFF ,S REQUESTFOR A CRIMINAL , l INVESTIGATION BY U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Ys. j` AND'CALIFORNIA BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS:. 1? 19 LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION, et. al. , Lane )' PURSUANT TO: Fed. R. Ev1d. 1002 Cross, a individual, FREMONT' POLICE ) Fed. R. Eviid. 1001 (3)' DEPARTMENT, CITY OF FREMONT, a city. 21 government entity, APPLIED MATERIALS PRESIDING: CORPORATION, at. al. , SANTA CLARA POLICE HONORABLEPHYLLISJ. HAMILTON 23 DEPARTMENT, CITY OF SANTA CLARA, ;a city: government entity, 'FEDERAL BUREAU OF 25 I-NVESTIGATION, a federal government entity, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF 27 SAN FRANCISCO, a city government entity, Earl Sanders, an individual', DUBLIN POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF DUBLIN, a city 29 government entity, :ALAMEDA COUNTY "SHERIFF, a county government entity, CONTRA COSTA 31 COUNTY .SHERIFF, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, s county government entity, GENERAL 'MOTORS 33 CORPORATION, et. al. , an affiliates, Michael Sprinkle, an -individual, and Does 35 1-30, inclusive, Defendant's 3? 39 41 PLAINTIFF, HEREBY REQUEST FOR A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION OF 43 CRIMINALACTIVITY BY LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMM AGENCIES WITHIN THE JURI SD I CT ION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, ''.PiT AMMA COUNTY, OF NORTH' 45 CALIFORNIA. PURSUANT TO IMMRAL RULE OF EVIDENCE- 1002 & 1001 (3) . 47 See Doe v.- United States, 805 F. Supp. 1513, 1.517' (D Hawaii. 1992) . 49 1 '•PLAINT IFE' S DECLARATION OF FACTS.;" 5 7 Plaintiff, has submitteddocuments to this court and Honorable Judge Hamilton that represent the facts that Plaintiff has: suffered 9 from a law enforcement abuse 'since 1993. Plaintiff, brings' this new information to this courts attention; FURTHERMORE,` submitting evidence 11 that Plaintiff' s claims "are true. 13 On Jan.' 30, 2002 at 4 :30 PM, Plaintiff met and conferred with Defendant' s counsel and THE REPLACEMENT JUDGE FOR Honorable. Judge, 15 Maria Rivera, within Plaintiff'; complaint flM against the Danville Police Department, Town Of Danville. Case ' #C01--009'82. Superior Court 17 Of California, Martinez. Plaintiff, is now aware that Judge Rivera has been promoted to one of the three' Appellate Court" Judges in Martinez, 19 that will oversee Plaintiff' s action regarding his appeal set forth by Mike Murray, Esq. on Dec. 20, 2001. Plaintiff', alleges that he asked 21defendant' s counsel on Jan. 28, 2002 about Judge Rivera' s reassignment, she denied that Judge Rivera:. would be overseeing Plaintiff' s appeal. 23 Plaintiff, asserts that during the meeting opposing counsel and Honorable Judge'' Tylier, he admitted to just the opposite, and 25 FURTHERMORE, tried to convince Plaintiff that>> he 'should -dismiss his complaint based on the facts of evidence in favor of the defense and 27 Honorable Judge Van Voorhis' s judgment of June 4 2001 in Superior Court Of California, Walnut Creek, denied Plaintiff' s ''Attorney' s the 29' "Motion: To Suppress Evidence." Plaintiff, alleges that on June 4 , 2001 Judge Van Voorhis was not given- the complete facts and information. on 31 ' what actually transpired on the evening of Feb. 2, 2001 in the Town of Danville. Plaintiff, alleges that he has reviewed"the original sound 33 track from the dispatch tape supplied to him by Tim Ri'en' s; office personnel. FURTHERMORE, 'Plaintiff' s D.U. I. attorney did not question th 35 arresting officer, about; any content regarding the dispatch tape. Plaintiff, asserts that `his 'attorney refused to allow. Plaintiff the 37 opportunity to take the stand and submit the information that was contained within the dispatch tape. 39 Plaintiff, asserts that he has already told this court that 41 someone illegally entered his home and opened, his security safe and removed: Plaintiff' s ; copy of the original dispatch tape. Plaintiff, has 43 subpoenaed his D.U. I. attorney and the original .dispatch tape recording- for trial on Feb. 11, 2002. Plaintiff, has also subpoenaed a former FBI 45 Agent in Concord, Robert 8childknect so as to help identify one of the two men in Meenar' s 'Travers .on Feb. 2, 2001 that Plaintiff 'truly 47 believes were officers that he saw at Robert's FBI retirement party in Walnut Creek. 4 Plaintiff, can prove that the authorities have been monitoring . Plaintiff ever since a General Motors employeeimplicated Plaintiff for 3 the disappearance of a child in Dublin, • Ca. 5 "FACTS IN' =:,STATEMENTS FROM ISSUE` CONFERENCE" 7 9 1. Defendant' s counsel admitted that the arresting officer on Feb. 2, 2001, told her that he was waiting in the Town & County parking 11 lot to 'observe Plaintiff on route home. Plaintiff, asserts that the officer during deposition under oath, denied his vehicle 13 placement'. 15 2. Defendant' s' counsel admitted that she never acquired a copy of the dispatch tape and did not listen to any copies. Plaintiff, asserts 17 that he explained to the Judge on Jan. 30, 2002 at the issue. conference, the differences between the originally obtained is dispatch tape from Mr. Rien, Esq. Office' and the second copy that was obtained and obviously censored by the an unknown' entity'. 21 3. Plaintiff, asserts that the Judge was very interested in the 23 differences'' and exact statements of both tapes. Plaintiff, suggests to this court that the Judge did not seem concerned about 25 the fact that the evidence was stolen from Plaintiff' s home and then again supplied 'a second time in Dec. 2002 by; his D.U.I. 2� attorney' s office, and that tape did not contain the evidence Plaintiff has set forth. 29 4. Plaintiff, told the judge that an emergency response was :generated 31 to the Danville Police on Feb. 2, 2001 and three squad cars showed up at the arrest scene. Plaintiff, asserts that the judge told 33 Plaintiff in quote, "That the Danville Police obviously had nothings better to do that night and stopping ::a vehicle without 35 license ,plates was exciting and a novelty at best for; the department. 37 S. Plaintiff, asserts that the UNKNOWN EN'M'ITY in Meenar' s Tavern on 39 Feb. 2` 2001, had every intentlon =f Troducing a warrant-less search upon Plaintiff. FURTHERMORE, questioning Plaintiff after 41 detainment and : arrest. 43 S. Plaintiff, asserts that the, Judge on Jan'. 30, 2002 told Plaintiff in quote, "That he could not use his Fifth Amendment Rights, as 45 jurisdictional subject to support his claims. " 47 ; 49 1 7. Plaintiff, alleges that if this 'court reviews Michael`H. Murray, Esq. letter to Plaintiff on Oct. 29, 2.0,01; _The, path of law 3 enforcement conspiracy is clearly set Iforth.' Plaintiff, alleges that Mr. Rien, Esq. retained Mr.' Murray, Esq. to handle the appeal 5 process, and when Plaintiff' first spoke with;"Mr. -,Murray, Esq. on Oct. 24 , 20'-01 he had no idea about Plaintiff's past history with 7 lata enforcement' or the contents of the original dispatch tape statements. Plaintiff, informed Mr. Murray, Esq. about the filed 9 information with this court, and Mr. Murray, `Esq. said in quote, 11 "This is amazing. S . Plaintiff, alleges that on 'Jan, 30, 2002 mentioned to the judge 13 that he had subpoenaed three people to appear at trial. Plaintiff, asserts 15 that the judge told Plaintiff, using similar words that, "Their testimonies' will be considered moot and 'third party, FURTHERMORE, 17 the defense can put you on the stand and ask three questions. 19 a. Did your vehicle have a license plate on Feb. 2, 2001? b. Where you drinking that night? 21 c. Did you test positive to . 11% over the legal limit? d. In Quote, ''Case closed demand a verdict. " 23 25 - CONCLUSION Plaintiff, alleges that he can prove that the Danville Police were 27 used to harass Plaintiff. Plaintiff, asserts that the original dispatch' tape verifies this truth. Plaintiff, alleges that after Mr. Rien, Esq. 2 lost the "Motion to Suppress," the unknown entity had 'to retrieve the tape from Plaintiff' s possession. Plaintiff, alleges that illegal 31 activity is obvious and someone entered his home and Mr. Rien',s, Esq. office supplied Plaintiff with acensored second tape, which is now in 33 the, hands of higher authorities. Plaintiff, alleges that the Superior 35 Court Of California, ' Martinez is corrupt and railroading Plaintiff' s opportunity to protect his civil rights at trial. 37 Plaintiff, is now fully aware of the validity of, his former Spouse' s statement in divorce court to Honorable Judge Folan, in quote, 39 "This man has no civil rights'. " 41 Plaintiff, asks Honorable Judge Hamilton, is this aforementioned statement by Plaintiff' s spouse true? 43 45 -Dated: Jan. 31, 2002 Domenick S. Clemente 47 <- Signed-49 Plaintiff, ' A 1 IN PRO PER FILED y INDIVIDUAL. PLAINTIFF 3 6900 JOH14STON ROAD C! DEC 20 PN 1: 09 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 5 925-248-4505 CLARK, U 5. UI5TRXT CL7uRT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1'l 13 DOMENICK S. C :EMENTE, ) Case No. : No. C01-4184 PJH ) 15 Plaintiff, ) PL.AINTIFF`S REQUEST FOR A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BY U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Va. ) CHIEF, PUBLIC INTEGNITY ''SERVICE CRIMINAL 17 DIVISION, CALIFORNIA BUREAU OF 19 LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION, et. al. , Lanes,, ) INVESTIGATIONS Cross, a individual, FREMONT' POLICE } DEPARTMENT, CITY or FREMONT, a city } PURSUANT TO: Fed. R. Evid. 1002 21 government entity, APPLIED MATERIALS Fed. R. Evd. 1001(3) CORPORATION, tat. al. , SANTA CI,ARX POLICE 23 DEPARTMENT, CITY OF SANTA CLARA, a cityPERSIDING: government entity, FEDERAL BUREAU OF 25 INVESTIGATION, a federal government entity, HONORABLE PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON SAN"FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF 27 SAN 'FRANCISCO, a city gavernmaent entity, Earl Sanders, ' an individual, DUBLIN POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF DUBLIN, a city 29 : governmmt entity, 'ALAMEDA COUNTY 'SHERIFF, a county government entity, CONTRA COSTA 31 COUNTY SHERIFF, COUNTY Or CONTRA COSTA,` a county government entity, GENERAL MOTORS 33 CORPORATION, et. al. , an affiliates, Michael Sprinkle, an individual, and Does 35 1-30, inclusive, Defendant's 37 39 41 PLAINTIFF, HEREBY REQUEST FOR A 'FEDERAL INVESTIGATION OF CRIMINAL' ACTIVITY BY EMPLOYEES OF LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION, ET. AL. , APPLIED 43' MATERIALS CORPORATION, ET. AL. , GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ET'. AL. AND FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION EMPLOYEES, AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT' 45 AGENCIES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION' OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY AND SANTA CLARA'COUNTY, OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. 47 PURSUANT TO FERERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 1002 & 1001 (3) See Dae v. United States, 805 F. Supp.. 1513, 1517 (D. Hawaii. 1992) . 49 { 1 "PLAINTIFF' S DECLARATION OF FACTS." 3 5 Plaintiff, request for assistance from your office and its employees for the seizure and protection of evidence that pertain to 7 nude photographs of Plaintiff, displayed at Plaintiff' s workplace on Oct . 9,'' 2000. Plaintiff,, has information and believes that nude 9 photographs obtained illegally of Plaintiff within the confines and privacy of his home, were displayed World Wide on Lam Research 11 Corporations, IntraNet website. 13 Plaintiff, has, filed a complaint for wrongful termination, civil rights violations, sexual harassment, defamation, intentional 15 infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction ofemotional distress, financial duress, declaratory relief, injunctive relief', 17 and loss of consortium,' Oct 1, 2001 in Superior Court of 'Alameda County California. On Nov. 9, 2001, the FBI filed a Notice Of Removal 19 and transferred the complaint to the United State's District Court of Northern California, San Francisco. 21 Plaintiff, hereby makes this request in Pro Per, to pray for 23 your assistant in recovering the displayed computer generated sexual harassment of nude photographs of Plaintiff, on the morning of 25 Oct . 9, 2001 at his place of employment Lam Research Corporation, ,4550 Cushing Parkway, Fremont, California. Plaintiff, believes that a copy 27 or copies of nude photographs displayed are within the confines of Lam Research Security or Information Technology Department of Lam Research 29 Corporate Computer Backup Files. Plaintiff, alleges that without your governmental intervention 31' am Research employees or its affiliates could permanently destroy the evidence. Pursviant To: 42 U.S.C. $2000AAA ,,(3) 33 Plaintiff, asserts that his First, Fourth, Fifth and 35 The aforementioned defendant' s has violated fourteenth Amendment Rights named within the enclosed summons and complaint. 37 Plaintiff, request that your department assist in securing 39and protecting Plaintiff' s Civil Rights To The Constitution Of The United States 41 43 Dated:' December 20, 2001 45' DOMENICK °SAMUEL CLEMENTE, PLAINTIFF 47 Signed: Y 49 I IN PRO PERFIL ED INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF 3 6900 JOHNSTON ROAD 02 JAN -2 PM 1. 09 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 > 5 925--248-4505 CtER ;r W, KING r��arxx u s'rpic ci c C ski 7 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 DOMENICx S. CLEMENTE, y Case No.,: No. COI-4184 PJ 15 Plaintiff, } PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BY 17 Vs. } U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, CHIEF, PUBLIC INTEGNITY 19 LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION, et. al. , Lane ) SERVICE CRIMINAL DIVISION, Cross, a individual, FREMONT POLICE CALIFORNIA BUREAU OF DEPARTMENT, CITY OF FREMONT, a City } `INVESTIGATIONS 21 government entity, APPLIED MATERIALS CORPORATION, et. al. SANTA CLARA POLICE PURSUANT TO: Fed. R. Evid. 1042 23 DEPARTMENT; CITY OF SANTA CLARA, a city Fed. R. Evid. 1001 (3} government entity, FEDERAL BUREAU OF 25 INVESTIGATION, a federal government entity, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF PRESIDING. 27 SAN FRANCISCO, a city government entity, HONORABLE PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON Earl Sanders, an individual, DUBLIN POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF DUBLIN, a city . 29 government entity, ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF, a county government entity, CONTRA COSTA 31. COUNTY SHERIFF, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a county government entity, 'GENERAL MOTORS 33 CORPORATION, et. al. , an affiliates, Michael Sprinkle, an individual., and Does 35 1-30, inclusive, Defendant's 37 39 41 PLAINTIFF, HEREBY REQUEST FOR A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF 43 INVESTIGATION', AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF AIAMEDA COUNTY', CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, SAN' FRANCISCO 45 COUNTY AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY,, OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. PURSUANT TO 'FERERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 1002 & 1001 (3) . 47 See Doe v. United States, 805 F. Supp. ' 1513, 1517 (D. Hawaii. 1992) . 49 - PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT AND AUTHORITIES TO DEFENDANT'S DEMAND - 1 t r t i a . "PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION OF FACTS. 3" Plaintiff, request .for assistance from ;your office and its employees for the seizure and protection of evidence that 5 pertain to the original dispatch tape recording from the. evening of Feb'. 2, '2001' recorded and communicated by the radio personnel' 7 and law enforcement of Contra Costa County. Plaintiff, has information and believes that the dispatch tape he originally 9 received from his attorney' s office in Livermore, California in or on there about June, 2001 has disappeared from a locked security 11 safe within the confines of Plaintiff' s home..... Plaintiff, alleges that he listened to the originally received dispatch tape twice 13 with the same conclusive results. Plaintiff,, alleges that he was detained by the Danville Police on the evening of Feb. 2, 2001 15 because of a "911" call into dispatch to apprehend Plaintiff on route home from a local tavern named "Meenars." Plaintiff, asserts 17 that within the content of his civil complaint against the Danville Police Plaintiff truly believed that the Danville Police were used is by, an unknown entity to harass Plaintiff and'' perform'a vehicle search without a warrant. 21 Plaintiff', alleges that in the last week of Dec. 2001 Janet Holmes, Esq. Deposed Plaintiff and requested a transcribed 23 copy of Plaintiff' s acquired dispatch tape. Plaintiff, asserts that he agreed and called Clark Reporting of Oakland, Ca. to perform the 25transcription. FURTHERMORE, providing Centra Costa County Counsel evidence that Plaintiff' s claims were true. Plaintiff, left Janet 27' Holmes, Esq. Office after his deposition and proceeded to make arrangements of the aforementoned. .Plaintiff, went home ,and :opened 29 his safe and discovered that his dispatch tape had been stolen. ' Plaintiff, placed a phone call to his attorney' s office, Timothy 'Rein, 31 Esq. of Livermore, CA. and spoke with an administrative assistant to receive another copy of the tape. That office told plaintiff,' that it 33 would take a week to obtain, another copy. Plaintiff,' alleges that he received a phone call back within the next day and was told that :a 35 copy was waiting in their office. Pl-aintiff,' alleges' that he drove to his attorneys office and picked up the second copy and drove home 37 Plaintiff, played the second copy and its contents were altered from the original. 39 Plaintiff] states the original tape began by quoting radio personnel communicating, to the arresting officer on the night of Feb. 41 2, 2001, "SUSPECT IS NOW LEAVING , TRAVELING SOUTHBOUND SAN RAMON VA� BLV,O. INA RED FORD TRUCK. - This statement is missing from 43 the copy he received in the last week of Dec. 2001. FURTHERMORE, Plaintiff, ' asserts that the second copy he received does not contain 45 the aforementioned statement. FURTHERMORE, Plaintiff, hereby demands protection from the missing and altering of obtained evidence and a 47 full disclosure of that evidence necessary to protect his civil rights. 49 c T . 1 Plaintiff, alleges that his criminal attorney, Tim Rein, Esq. took a courtroom testimony from the arresting officer in June, 3 2001. Plaintiff, alleges that the dispatch tape was in his attorneys possession and his attorney had the knowledge that an unknown entity 5 called 'into,' dispatch so as to apprehend Plaintiff in route home. Plaintiff, alleges that Mr. Rein, Esq. failed to 'mention or question 7 ' the arresting officer about the information on the radio dispatch tape. Plaintiff, asserts that; some unknown entity advised his criminal 9 attorney to suppress the fact that Plaintiff was detained for a search without a warrant, not the absence of a''vehicle license plate on his 11 new Ford truck WHEREFORE, Plaintiff suggests one more time that this 13 unknown entity plagues Plaintiff' s abilities to secure and obtain legal counsel without interference. Plaintiff, asserts that he did. not 15file a' report for the missing dispatch tape, FURTHERMORE, suggesting 17 that Plaintiff truly believes the authorities stole the tape. .REFERMCES TO ATTORNEY'S RETAXIM TO FROWCT I?XAXNTIFF 19 AND DISWSSM TTMM SERVXCES Er X FLU = 21 1. Ilson New, Esq. attorney at law San Francisco. , 2. Scott' Handelman, E'sq attorney at law Walnut Creek 23 3. Bruce Rosen, Esq.' attorney at '_law San Diego. 4 . Clyde Butts, Esq.` attorney at law Walnut Creek'. 25 5. Bruce` McArther, Esq. attorney at law Walnut Creek. 6. Harry' Traback, Esq. attorney at law Pleasanton." 27 Plaintiff, prays to this court and to the United States 29 Attorney General' s Office, to assist in 'a criminal investigation of local law enforcement at all levels of Federal, State, and County 31 regarding this mass cover-up and conspiracy to subject Plaintiff as a fifth class citizen without civil rights, liberty to protect 33 himself in a court of law. Plaintiff, hereby ,makes this request In Pro Per, to pray for your assistant in recovering the original 35 dispatch tape of Feb. 2`, 2001. Plaintiff, alleges that without your governmental intervention the Danville Police and Contra Costa County 37 Sheriff, employees or its affiliates could permanently destroy the evidence. Pursuant To: 42 Ur..S.C.;' $1002_ 1001 L_--I} 39 Plaintiff, asserts that his First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights were violated by the defendant' s named 41 within the enclosed summons and complaint. Plaintiff, request° that your department assists in securing and protecting Plaintiff' s Civil 43 Right's To The Constitution Of The United States. 45 Dated: Jan 2, 2002 47 DO NICK SAMU LEMENTE,` Signed: , 49' PLAINTIFF M408XV60: a/wrsd..ui 5-.:16ru; 610 869 0000 -> Attorney..At Law, P090 2. 03/29/01" 15:58 FARC $10 $ t9 9$00 LAW OFFICES IM002 MEDIATION LAW OFFIC8S OF BARBARA S. BRYANT ACHE ARLINGTON BUILDING' 492 NINTH STREET,SUITE 300' OAKLAND,CALIFORNIA 94607 (510)465-3500'' FAX(5 0)839-9800 boabryant@pacbell.net March 28, 2000 BY FAX AND US.MAIL Bruce C.F.McArthur,Esq. Robert E Thurbon,Esq. Attorney at Law Jacqueline S. McHaney,Esq. 1220 Oakland Blvd., Suite 200 Erin Mackay,Esq. Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Law Offices ofR.obert E.Thurbon 3400 Bradshaw Road, Suite B Sacramento, CA 9582? Re:,l I&MMISy. San Ramon Valley jin Pied School Dish Contra Costa County Superior Court,No 000-43 818(EASE) Dear Counsel: , This is to confirm that I have been selected as.,a mediator in the above matter scheduled for: DATE- April 11,2000 "TIME: 14-30 a.m. PLACE: Mediation Law Offices of Barbara S. Bryant The Arlington Building 492 Ninth Street, Suite 300 Oakland,CA 94607 To acquaint you with my'dispute resolution experience and background, I am enclosing in the mail my curriculum vitae,s list of services provided and fee schedule, as well as'a recent Daily Journal profile. Feedback from other attorneys who have used my mediation services is on page 2 ofthe'profile, columns 2 and 3. BILLINGS 1NFORMAIIO : My preparation time and the first two hours of the session are donated. 'After that time, I will be paid my regular hourly rate of$300 per hour,to be borne equally between the parties unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties. An initial invoice is enclosed. In order to confirm and hold the mediation date,please arrange to have it paid by April 4,2001. April 10, 2001 Mediation {Offices of Barbara S.;Bryant The Arlington Building 492 Ninth Street, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94097 Re: Plaintiff's Mediation Brief Clemente v. SRVUSD,'et al'; No. C00-0381$ Dear``:Counsel: This brief represents and reflects the issue's stated within the attached second' " amended complaint filed March 12, 2001 in the Superior Court of Contra Costa. The first cause of action, Breach crf Contract is based on Plaintiff's misclassification upon hire on August 30, 1999. Plaintiff alleges that he interviewed for a tenure, full-time position and was hired by David Lorden, Principle of the San Ramon Valley High School. The duties of this position were acquired from a retired tenure teacher. Plaintiff assumed all of the classesand responsibilities of a retired tenured teacher. So stated to:plaintiff by David Lorden at the time of his interview and hire. Sylvia Ryan, acting Vice Principle was present during this interviewing process and was given the responsibilities to assist Plaintiff with any District credential processing. Prior to the beginning of the school year in 1999, Plaintiff met all of the necessary requirements to perform his role at the San Ramon Valley Unified School'District. During the time of Plaintiff's interview and District paperwork process, Plaintiff's employment classification changed from a first year probationary teacher contract to a temporary contract. Documents are available to support this change in contract status and will be submitted at trial. David Lorden generated a;,letter to Plaintiff one week after Plaintiff's interview, stating that this new hire will be mutually beneficial and rewarding to his campus. Plaintiff alleges that he interviewed for and was mired as a first year probationary teacher, assuming all of the responsibilities from a retired tenured teacher. Opposing counsel stated in writing that Plaintiff was fulfilling responsibilities of a teacher ori leave of absence. Plaintiff alleges that he met with the retired teacher on campus several occasions before he retired in 1999. This acclamation and interviewing of Pat Evers was necessary for Plaintiff to assume the responsibilities of his position. At that point, Plaintiff alleges that he had hear from 1 numerous sources that Pat Evers and David Lorden''never saw Eye-To-Eye on any issues during their engagement on campus. Thus, bringing forth the mess Plaintiff assumed upon hire, so stated within the second amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges that his encountered resistance from the SRVSD office personnel during his hiring process stems from a FBI investigation that took place against Plaintiff in 1993-94 while Plaintiff was a substitute teacher for the District. Plaintiff alleges that the same personnel from 1993-94 assisted Plaintiff with several substitute teaching assignments and a Substitute Wavier Credential valid for one: year. Plaintiff alleges that he was setup and framed in 1993-94 and the SRVSD office canceled Plaintiff's Substitute Credential'. Confirmed by Plaintiff from the State Of California Credentialing Office in Sacramento. Plaintiffalleges that on Oct. 3 1999 the Danville Chamber of Commerce appeared and sponsored a winemaking event at Plaintiff's Estate in Danville. Also, providing newspaper coverage from the Tri-Valley Herald. On Oct. 6, 1999 Plaintiff was removed from employment and was told that he was a bad image to school children and the District did not want Plaintiff to teach in their District: Plaintiff alleges that the 1993-94 investigation and classroom setup is linked to his 1999 removal from the District. Ms. Silverstein and Robert Stockberger in 1994 composed a letter to Plaintiff stating the aforementioned alcohol issue Ms. Silverstein reestablished and 'confirmed the same related issues in 1999. Plaintiff states in his complaint that the District personnel deposed lied under oath. Plaintiff has documentation to assist his claims at trial. Plaintiff has suffered' numerous injury due to this FBI investigation and the MADD association in the SRVSD has implicated Plaintiff three times for wrong doing in the community. Plaintiff's third implication occurred in Danville on Feb. 2, 2001. Plaintiff was stopped by the Danville'Police for not having a;license plate on his new vehicle and implicated and arrested for a D.U.I. Plaintiff has legal counsel and has discovered that someone from the drinking establishment 'Plaintiff attended on Feb. 2 2001' telephoned the Danville Police dispatch to apprehend Plaintiff on route to his home at 11:30 Pm. Plaintiff alleges that this continued character assassination has cost Plaintiff four careers, his marriage and family. The missing children's association in the Bay Area and the MADD society association informed Plaintiff's wife and the FBI interviewed his family. Plaintiff's last employment ended on Jan. 3, 2001 because Plaintiff perused the parties responsible for placing nude pictures of Plaintiff in the privacy of his home on the companies Intranet Web Site. Plaintiff alleges that if he is kept from employment and the resources to protect him due to this continued abuse and defamation, his civil rights are being infringed upon and the due process of law is suppressed. 2' Second cause of action Declaratory Relief is based on a;history of denigration and defamation Plaintiff has suffered since 1993. Re-occurring slander, defamation and unemployment is placing Plaintiff in(financial duress, emotional infliction and restrictinghis constitutional rights as a citizen of the United States. Third cause of action Injunctive Relief is based on Plaintiff's rights as a taxpayer residing within the school district's jurisdictional boundaries. Plaintiff and the taxpayers of California have suffered from the illicit acts of the SRVSD policy of writing temporary contracts for teachers who will assume the responsibilities of retired tenured teachers or newly opened teaching positions. Respectfully, "Dom Clemente 3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA DOMENI'CK S. CLEMENTE Pla#ntlti, Case #: MS,C00-03818 VS SAN RAMON VALLEY' UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Notice of Date, Time and Defendant. Place'of Arbitration Hearing You and each of you are hereby notified that the above entitled matter has been set for arbitration hearing,on the following date July 12 , 2001 at the hour of 1:30 p._m.at the address listed below: Jury 'Room, Dept. 18 Contra Costa County Superior Court 725 Court ..Street Martinez, CA 9455 (925) 646-4018 Date: May 25, 2001 kardJ. k. elson ARBITRATOR PLEASE ATTACH A'PROOF OF SERVICE SUPERIOR; COURT -' 'MARTINET COUNTY OF CONTRA ' COSTA DEPARTMENT 18 JUDGE WILLIAM M. KOLIN .1 REPORTER: D. HOLLAND 1 �v��'� DATE 02/22/01 DOMENICK S CLEMENTE PLAINTIFF (S) VS`. CASE NO. MSC00' 03818 MINUTE ORDER SANRAMON VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL 'DISTRICT DEFENDANT'(S) PROCEEDINGS: HEARING ON. DEMURRER TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT of'CLEMENTE'` FIL BY SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED' SCHOOL DISTRICT SEE OTHER MINUTES THIS DATE FOR APPEARANCES COUNSEL DO NOT ARGUE THE TENTATIVE RULING, THEREFORE IT BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT, AS FOLLOWS The, general demurrer to the First Cause of Action: is OVERRULED. The allegations are sufficient to allege that a contract was made fora permanent Position, and thatdefendantthereafter'` attempted to change the terms and terminated, plaintiff without due process accorded probationary and permanent teachers . The general demurrer to the Second Cause of Action is SUSTAINED WITH 10 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff has alleged an accrued cause of action for breach of contract, and only alleges past wrongs as to himself, so 'declaratory relief on this basis is not available . See 5 Witkin, <California Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Pleading section 823, pp. 279-280 . This case is distinguishable from Lundervill'e v Emery Unified School District '(1968) 26>2 Cal .App. 2d:459, because there, the petitioner did not have 'a claim for contract damages. See id. at 461. Also, the Second Cause of Action only alleges».plaintiff ' s position on: any 'purported controversy The general demurrer, to the Third Cause of Action is SUSTAINED WITH 10 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND. Injuctive relief on the pleaded basis is available pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure` section 526a . However, the allegations . are insufficient to show that plaintiff has standing to bring this cause of action. See 4' Witkin, ' California Procedure (4th ed.' 1997) Pleading section 144 , p.200 (action available to "citizen.: resident„ or "nonresident citizen taxpayer") . Date : 02/22/01 BY J BROWN, Deputy. Clerk FROM Jo-zn ;k=p 9an FAX NO. 925 248 43E':-� I:e.. �� -35-'43=!I! S WWWACEMITWa 'T'ECHI,HCA,ADVISORY SL'MWE PDX ATTORNEYS A Division of Techrsical'Advisory Ser% ce.:na.. December 2, 1995 D=cnick S.Cte =Ie 6-oo lohwtori Road Plaas=ton,C A 9458 Rc: 12181/98 Con-versation with Jeffity Sv=-a Bear Mr.Clemente Following is an outline of the telephone cmversadon I had with Jeffrey Svestka, Ingurauce Adjuster for Federcted haat wee, on tDecombet 1. 1998. This letter has be=prepared putts=T to yo=request. I initially cont d Mr. Svwtka on December 1, 1998, to clarify who should receive the final gill for bomenick Clue's services oto the.L=iriah Roof I8 Csse. Mr. SLerJm indicated dissatisfaction with W.Clema nte's services for two 7tu ms, l bxt, he stated that the expert waver provided any actual conclusions. I asked h1r. Svcs*a if he,h0 requested a report fiom the eVerL He repined that he pari requested and received a report but that it fhiled to of any conclusions drawn from the ovidence. Sed 1te adjuster indicated that he ;felt that TASA. should do a mane thorough juvestipticn into experts' backgroums. 'T askod WI=prompted this comment =d lir. SveMa responded that same legal troubles in tlto expert's past were discovered during Meir izrvasd,--t on of his backsmmd. I aced him to elaborate on his meat�ng of"legal trembles" aid'he stated that be " infosrned that the expert had been a quitted of a crinival allograden. He rw4e it chess that he had received this information second hand, from Itho ag cy,Phillip Tuda>;,who was handHng the cau. I& Svestka did not parcvide' more detailed infb=stion as to wbt the criminal allegation was or when it appeared on the me aVa reowd. I explained to the adj=ar that 'TA;SA does not to that kind t7f b. round check on v-pe% but if we are informed of pertinent inf3=ntion like this, v,,o do note it in the export's Ste. Rdor:iJ=16ing the cmmersation With Mr.'Sv „I=ado an offer to reduce the final hi]ling by 576.74,,asking the bal=oe'arae $3010.00.>s 1 made tis offer in an attempt to placate the clie,s. The raduotsoo offer was gratelhIly wxepted. (rbit reclacdon dotes not affect the expert's portion.) Xwx quz*tt,rs:11£6 DelWb Pike* Blue Sall.Pennsylvania 194M-18,58•610-276-8372 * FkX 800-339-8272 Unitod States and Gonads:800.523-39:19•Unhed Kingdom:0400.80-1292 ea-=&O:vxperts4Ptasanst.co3 •www.msanot.com 12/21/69 TUE 16:34' il'7t7-R w;; 179a1 FROM ,: Joan Ti omjw sor; FRk NO- 925 246 4329 Dec. 2'' Aft'my cta asation w&W. Svestm,I contacted Iomeukk Clex+erft t4 discuss Ws ftutber. mt. Ciemexxme then infb=aed me that he'dida't have std Hauch as a u%Zc ticket on Ids zecord and that lit wouid:jawsEpte tbaa further and have it cleared.up. I then called Jeffroy Svestka back and i 1bm3ed him ''that the apat said that the mfo mmation obtainod on his bacicgowd was iztacc crate and tbet he wu going to see to it that the matter was cleated up. Ibis desudption of evocu is acccumte to ;he hest of my r=lleotion. If T'cats be of gmy fi thcr' assistatetec,please feel fm to contact me at 1-800-523-2319. T.lumk you again for ft C'hds as Sift. Mindy, T'rcvor atad I wish you and your family very XVpy Holidays; Tor Eek ADE/le t 2�2yrss rM 16:34 IT_VR s't4cz i n-ANVILLE POLICE DEP TM NT Gregory D. Gilbert - Chief of Police February 14, 2001 Domeni!ck S. Clemente 6900 Johnston Rd. Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-487-8180 RE. Invoice##01-3288 You were involved in the incident described below and are now responsible for the costs associated with your arrest. Pursuant to State Law, Government Code 53150-53157, costs for emergency personnel response to violations of Section 23152 or 23153 of the California Vehicle Code are billable directly to the responsible party. As these are civil costs, the payment of emergency response fees are unrelated to any possible fines or penalties imposed by the court process, nor:.does payment limit any of your•rights under the late. Pursuant; to Government Code 53155 there is a statutory limit of one thousand ($1,000.00), for this response. DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE BILLING: Date of Incident: 02/02/0.1 Location: Sycamore Valley/San Ramon Valley Blvd, Danville Police Report: 01-.3288' Civil Cost: $305.64 TOTAL: $305.6 FULL PAYMENT IS DUE UPON RECEIPT OF THIS INVOICE. It is overdue in thirty (30) clays, no further notices will be sent. Overdue accounts'will be turned over to Office of Revenue Collection for collection. A finance charge will be applied to all past due billings'. Make checks or Money Order payable to: Town of Danville 510 La Ganda Way Danville, CA 94526 Any questions'regarding this billing may be directed to Sergeant Bruce Olson at 925-314-34 10. 510 LA GONDA WAY DANVILLE, CA 94526 • (925) 3'14-3410 • FAX: (925) 820-.1641 Report of Hours mer ency►Response M# 0{-� Win.=` ,�1c; t""�' �.-- .� •c:�t 3a* }arrest's Name L)atel!"ime Location of Incident Accident Involved.` Yes No DR. Yes ,,/ No-Cite Released' Test T Y jlr Blood Breath Results Drug Screen: Yes .No • Synopsis: . T-Of'P3 - tJ t;-rP t--t 1 . - Offiiftes Name Duties Perfornd How Supervisor's Name Duties Perforn><ed Hours Submitted By: ` Approved By: LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL H. MURRAY 1212 Broadway,Tenth Floor Oaklands CA 94612 Ph: (510)452-0441 • Fax(510)484-2865 October 29, 2001,: Domenick Samuel Clemente 6900 Johnston Street Pleasanton, CA 9456 Dear Mr. Clemente; Re: People v. Clemente, No 114067-2 Thank you for calling and for sending a,;copy of your civil'complaint by FAX. I received and read it today upon returning from New York, I'was puzzled by your phone message. You referred to your surprise at the judge's refusal to admit'a dispatch tape. If you are talking about the Walnut Creek case which is now on appeal, I see no issue involving a dispatch tape. As you know from being present at the evidentiary hearing on June 4, 2001, and from the moving papers Mr. Rien filed on your behalf, the motion Judge Van Voorhis denied was a motion to suppress evidence {FSI' test results, breathalyzer test results, etc.)that the DA would want to use at trial to prove you were DLJI on the night on February 2 2001. That suppression motion was based on the rationale that Deputy Custodio did not have reasonable cause to stop your car and detain you simply because you did not have license plates on your new Ford truck. Am I missing'something? S, ely 4HAEL H. Y MI-I :hn cc: Timothy B. Rien, Esq. SUPERIOR CC3URT C7 ' THE STABQF''C.ALIP4RNIA IN AND FOR THE COSY Or CONTRA COSTA AFPELLhTEI)IVI'SION' THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA NO. 012020-4 id Respondent, NOTICE OF FILING APPEAL NOTICE OF TIME FOR FILING BRIEFS V. NOTICE OF TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING and CERTIFICATE OF MAILING n SAMUEL CLEMENT .dant and Appellant TO THE HEREIN NAMED APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT: Appeal from the order denying motion to suppress made and entered in the Limited' Jurisdiction of the Superior Court-Walnut Creek , in Action No.114067-2 was filed on 7/31/01 and received in Superior Court Appellate Division on ...12/20/01. (Rule 103(a) (b) Hearing Date: APRIL 5, 2002 Time: 1:30 p.m. Place: Appellate Dept. 11 1020 Ward Street, Martinez, tenl TIME IQ FILE BRIEFS (Rule 7 a) DEC �. �: Z Appellant to file opening brief by JANUARY 30, 2002 TORRV III: Respondent to file reply brief by FEBRUARY 19, 2002 L`P>stox���itNicy • By p. .S►yf i Appellant to file closing brief by MARCH 1, 2002 YOU 'MUSS"`FILE A BRIEF IF YOU DO NOT ETLE A BRIEF YOUR APPEAL WILL BE DISMISSED. Notes; 1. File original plus three copies of briefs with the Court. All . briefs must' be typewritten. 2 Mail briefs to Superior Court Appellate Division P. 0. Box 911 Martinez, Ca. 94553 3. Extensions' of time (Rule 102) . Extension of time must be requested in writing' before due date for filing of brief.- When an extension of time continues the date set for hearing,, the Clerk willre-set for ,hearing and give notice. MICHAEL H MURRAY DISTRICT ATTORNEY- ATTORNEY AT LAW 10 =DOUGLAS DR #130' 1989A SANTA RITA RD #238 MARTINEZ, CA 94553 PLEASANTON, CA 94566-4751 'sttorney .for Appellant Attorney for Respondent Tare, under penalty of perjury that I am not a;party to this appeal and that "opy of this Notice was mailed first class', postage fully prepaid, in a velope addressed as shown above. -u at Martinez, California on December 20, ' 2001 LAW OFFICES OF ` CCC...... 1 TIMOTHY B. RIEN MAY 2 2 2001 2 197 SOUTH `•S" STREET LTVHRMORE, CALIFORNIA 94551-4245 JA 3 TELEPHONE(925)449-0666 'VT IVNK 4 STATE BAR No. 77900 ey .Ikputy !ar 5. Attorney for Defendant,:DOMENICK CLEMENTE fi 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA WALNU T CREED JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 11' PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) No. 114067-2 12 Plaintiff, ) NOTICE OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE 13 vs ) (Penal Code section 153$.5)_ 14 ) DOMENICK'CLEMENTE, 15 ) Date: June 4, 2001 16 Defendant. ) Time: 1:30'p.m. Dept: TBA 17 TO: THE CLERK. OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY':SUPERIOR COURT AND 1$ THE CONTRA COSTACOUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: 19 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the 4th day of June, 2001, at 1:30 p.m., or as 20 2I soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the above-entitled Court, the defendant 22 herein will move for an order to suppress the following'evidence: 23 Any and all observations and statements of, and/or evidence seized, from the 24 person of defendant on February 2, 2001. 25 26 27 IAl EXHIBIT A The motion will be based on the attached memorandum of points and authorities, 2 contents of the court file, and all the evidence and other matters to be presented at the 3 4 hearing. 5 Dated': May 21, 2001 Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY B.'RIEN" -, 7 9 By: 40THYCB. RIEN lfl Alorneys for Defendant, DOMENICK CLEMENTE 1� 12 13 14 o O 16 17 H 1$ 19 24 21 22 23 24 25 26 2? 28 2 LAW OFFICES OF 1 TIMOTHY B. RIEN 2 197 SOUTH •.S" STREET UvERMORE, CALIFORNIA 94550-4245 3 TELEPHONE`.(925)449-0666 STATE BAR No. 77900 5 Attorney for Defendant, DOMENICK CLEMENTE fi ' 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA. COSTA WALNUT CREED:JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 11 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) No. 114067-2 12 Plaintiff, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 13 VS. ) SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 14 ) SUPPRESS EVIDENCE DOMENICK: CLEMENTE, ) (Penal Code section 1538.5) 15 ) 16 Defendant. 17 1 Statement of Facts 19 On Friday, February 2, 2001, Officer CUSTODIO of the Danville Police 20 Department conducted a traffic stop on a 2000 Ford Ranger pickup truck at the corner 21 of Sycamore Valley Road and San Ramon Valley Blvd. in the City of Danville. The 22 Officer'justified the stop of the vehicle because it had."no rear license plate." 23 24 The driver of the pickup truck was contacted and thereafter investigated and 25 arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (Vehicle Code section 23152(a)). 26 The stop and detention was made without.benefit of a search or arrest warrant, 27 2$ and defendant contends that it was not supported'by probable cause. 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS"AND AUTHORITIES 2 A search without a warrant is presumptively illegal, and must be justified by the prosecution. The prosecution bears the burden of establishing the legality of a warrantless search. "It is hornbook law that searches conducted outside the judicial 6 process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under 7 the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement unless they fall within one of a'few 9 narrow exceptions thereto. (Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) 403 U.S. 443; 454-455 10 [2'9 L.Ed.2d 564, 576, 91 S.Ct. 2022] (plug. opn.By Stewart, J.).) (People v. Osband 1111 (1996) 13 Cal.41h 622, 673; internal quotation marks omitted; see also Mincey'v. Arizona 12 13 (1978)437 U.S. 385, 390.) Further, when law enforcementofficers conduct a 44 14 warrantless search,the prosecution has the;.burden of justifying the search under a o' 16 wm recognized exception to the constitutional warrant requirement. (Welsh v. Wisconsin 0 � (1984) 466 U.S. 740, 749-750; People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99, 106 [137 .., 17 1$ Cal.Rptr. 447, 561 P.2d l 135 .) .19 The prosecution's burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence. (People v. M Superior Court(Bowman) (1971) 18'Cal.App.3d 316.} 21 1. 22 DETENTION UNLAWFUL FOR LACK:OF REASONABLE SUSPICION 231 24 A detention is unlawful unless the police have reasonable suspicion for that 25 detention. "To justify an investigative stop or detention,the circumstances known or `tb 27 apparent to the officer must include'specific and'articulable facts which viewed 28 objectively, would cause a reasonable officer to suspect that (1) some activity relating to 4 t crime has taken place or is occurring or about to occur, and (2) the person the officer intends to stop or detain is involved in that activity. (In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 3 4 888, 893 [148 Ca1.Rptr. 366, 582 F.2d 957].)" (People v. Conway (1994) 25 Cal.App.4 h 385, 388.) "The corollary to this rule is that an investigative stop or 6 detention predicated on circumstances which when viewed objectively, support a mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch is unlawful, even though the officer may be acting in good 9 faith." (Id., at p. 389; citation to In re Tony C. omitted; see also People v. Clair(1992) 16 2 Cal 4 h 629, 675.) CAR STOP UNLAWFUL FOR LACK OF REASONABLE SUSPICION 1 A vehicle cannot be stopped unless the police have reasonable suspicion for that 1 c a 1 stop. "A traffic stop is justified at its inception if based on at least reasonable suspicion 17 that the driver has violated the Vehicle Code or some other law. However, it must be $ temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. _ I9 (Florida v. Royer(1983) 460U.S. 491, 500 [75 L.Ed.2d 229, 238, 103"S.Ct. 1319] (plur. opn.)." (People v. Bell(1996) 43 Cal.App.4 h 754, 761; internal quotation marks, citations omitted.) 23 24 III. 25 FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE 26 Any evidence which flaws from an illegal detention, arrest, search, or seizure is 27 tainted by the illegality and must be suppressed'. "If the challenged police conduct is 28 shown to be violative of the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule requires that all 5 evidence obtained as a result of such conduct be suppressed. Such evidence includes 2 not only what was seized in the course of the unlawful conduct itself—the so-called 3 4 'primary' evidence [citations]—but also what was subsequently obtained through the 1information gained by the police in the course of such conduct—the so-called 6 'derivative' or 'secondary' evidence. Thus 'the Truit of the poisonous tree,' as well as the 7 tree itself,must be excluded." (People v. Mayfield(1997) 14 Cal.4`h 668, 760; citations 9 omitted; quoting People v. Williams (1988) 45 CaUd12658, 1299.) 16 Conclusion 11 Wherefore, defendant respectfully urges this Court to grant his motion to 12, suppress the fruits of an unlawful detention, including arrest, observations, and any and all tests. 0 go a Dated: May 21, 2001 Respectfully submitted', 1fi LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY B.RIEN 17 18 19 By IMOTHY B.PEN 20 orneys fd; efendant, 21 DOMENICK CLEMENTE 22 73 24 25 26 27 28 6