§§1986, 1985, 1983 1981 1979, 1961 & 1962

Criminal Complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 872, 1001, 1621 & 1622,

Comes now the Plaintiff, Steve Douglas, Gartin, who is of proper age, of sound mind, tells the truth and has first hand knowledge of events and actions contained herein, without an attorney and in full possession of all inalienable rights and states:

Estate of Robert V. Zehnder

5587 South Urban Street

Littleton, Colorado 80127

1. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Pastor Robert Victor Zehnder, now deceased, was employed as a Senior Pastor with the Bethlehem Lutheran Church & School, Incorporated. Defendant had knowledge of, conspired in, and neglected to prevent or correct, the intentional and malicious deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Pastor Robert Victor Zehnder, now deceased, was operating within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

2. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Dolores Jean Zehnder, was employed as a Senior Agent with the Bethlehem Lutheran Church & School, Incorporated. Defendant had knowledge of, conspired in, and neglected to prevent or correct, the intentional and malicious deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Dolores Jean Zehnder, was operating within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of her employment.

3. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Tamara Ann Zehnder, was employed with by U S West, Incorporated. Defendant had knowledge of, instigated and conspired in, and neglected and failed to prevent or correct; the intentional and malicious deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Tamara Ann Zehnder operating within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of her employment.

• Markus Bernard Merritt

5587 South Urban Street

Littleton, Colorado 80127

4. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Markus Bernard Merritt, was engaged as the Legal Director/ Advisor by Robert Victor Zehnder and Delores Jeane Lynne Zehnder and Tamara Ann Zehnder and such Zehnder Family as in mention in probate assignments re: Robert Victor Zehnder Estate and further employed by U S West, Incorporated in such legal capacity. Defendant had knowledge of, instigated and conspired in, actuated and participated in, failed and neglected to prevent or correct, the intentional and malicious deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Markus Bernard Merritt, was operating within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

• Karsh & Fulton, P.C.

Suite 710 Cherry Tower Office Building

950 South Cherry Street

Denver, Colorado 80222-2665

5. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Alan Karsh, was employed as a Senior Partner and Attorney at Law of Karsh & Fulton, P.C. Defendant had knowledge of, conspired in and/or neglected and failed to prevent or correct, the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Alan Karsh, was operating under color of law within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

6. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Larry Fulton, was employed as a Senior Partner and Attorney at Law of Karsh & Fulton, P.C. Defendant had knowledge of, conspired in and/or neglected and failed to prevent or correct, the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Larry Fulton, was operating under color of law within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

7. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Seymour Joseph, was employed as a Partner and Attorney at Law with Karsh & Fulton, P.C. Defendant had knowledge of, conspired in and/or neglected and failed to prevent or correct, the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Seymour Joseph, was operating under color of law within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

8. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, J. Terry Wiggins, was employed as a Partner and Attorney at Law of Karsh & Fulton, P.C. Defendant had knowledge of, instigated and conspired in, and neglected and failed to prevent or correct the intentional and malicious deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, J. Terry Wiggins, was operating under color of law within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

9. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Fred Gabler, was employed as a Partner and Attorney at Law with Karsh & Fulton, P.C. Defendant had knowledge of, conspired in and/or neglected and failed to prevent or correct, the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Fred Gabler, was operating under color of law within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

10. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Antonio Troy Ciccarelli, was employed as an Attorney at Law with the Karsh & Fulton, P.C. Defendant had knowledge of, instigated and conspired in, and neglected and failed to prevent or correct, the intentional and malicious deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Antonio Troy Ciccarelli, was operating under color of law within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

11. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Valerie Krogman, was employed as a trusted professional paralegal with Karsh & Fulton, P.C. Defendant had knowledge of and neglected to prevent or correct, the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Valerie Krogman, was operating within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of her employment.

100 Jefferson County Parkway

Golden, Colorado 80401

15. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Henry E. Nieto, was employed as a Sworn Judicial Officer with the Jefferson County District Courts. Defendant had knowledge that the deprivations were in progress, conspired in and had the power and the duty to prevent or correct the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, causing Plaintiff grievous damages. At all pertinent times herein, Henry E. Nieto, was operating under color of law within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

12. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Roy G. Olsen, was employed as a Sworn Judicial Officer with the Jefferson County District Courts. Defendant had knowledge of, conspired in and neglected and failed to prevent or correct, the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Roy G. Olsen, was operating under color of law within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

13. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Charles T. Hoppin, was employed as a Sworn Judicial Officer with the Jefferson County District Courts. Defendant had knowledge of, conspired in and neglected and failed to prevent or correct, the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Charles T. Hoppin, was operating under color of law within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

14.At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, James C. Demlow, was employed as a Sworn Judicial Officer with the Jefferson County District Courts. Defendant had knowledge that the deprivations were in progress, conspired in and had the power and the duty to prevent or correct the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, causing Plaintiff grievous damages. At all pertinent times herein, James C. Demlow, was operating under color of law within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

911 10th Street

Golden, Colorado 80401

16. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Ronald L. Miller, was employed as a Sworn Judicial Officer with the Golden Municipal Court. Defendant had knowledge that the deprivations were in progress, conspired in and had the power and the duty to prevent or correct the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, causing Plaintiff grievous damages. At all pertinent times herein, Ronald L. Miller, was operating under color of law within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

17. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Judith Cherne, was employed as a Clerk of the Court with the Golden Municipal Court. Defendant had knowledge of, conspired in and/or neglected and failed to prevent or correct, the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Judith Cherne, was operating within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of her employment.

City Attorney, City of Golden, Incorporated

911 10th Street

Golden, Colorado 80401

18. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, William Hayashi, was employed as City Attorney of Golden, Colorado. Defendant had knowledge that the deprivations were in progress, conspired in and had the power and the duty to prevent or correct the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, causing Plaintiff grievous damages. At all pertinent times herein, William Hayashi, was operating under color of law within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

911 10th Street

Golden, Colorado 80401

19. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Theresa Reilly, was employed as a Human Resources Manager for the City of Golden, Incorporated. Defendant had knowledge of and neglected and failed to prevent or correct the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Theresa Reilly, was operating under color of authority within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of her employment.

911 10th Street

Golden, Colorado 80401

20. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Mike Bestor, was employed as a City Manager for the City of Golden, Incorporated. Defendant had knowledge of, conspired in and/or neglected to prevent or correct, the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Mike Bestor, was operating under color of authority within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

• Golden Community Center, Incorporated

1470 10th Street

Golden, Colorado 80401

Golden Community Center, Inc. Staff includes:

Beverly Koenig, Theresa Reilly, Larry Rock and other Staff employees responsible for general operation of the facility.

21. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Beverly Koenig, was employed as a Senior Manager, Golden Community Center, Incorporated for the City of Golden, Incorporated. Defendant had knowledge of, conspired in and/or neglected to prevent or correct, the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Beverly Koenig, was operating within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of her employment.

1470 10th Street

Golden, Colorado 80401

22. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Michael Moler 1465, was employed as a Sworn Law Enforcement Senior Training Officer with the Golden Police Department, Incorporated. Defendant had knowledge of, conspired in and/or neglected and failed to prevent or correct the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Michael Moler 1465, was operating under color of authority within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

23. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Ted Schnack 2011, was employed as a Sworn Law Enforcement Officer with the Golden Police Department, Incorporated. Defendant had knowledge of, conspired in and/or neglected to prevent or correct, the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Ted Schnack 2011, was operating under color of authority within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

• Golden Police Department, Incorporated

1470 10th Street

Golden, Colorado 80401

24. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Lewis Shellenberger 2031, was employed as a Sworn Law Enforcement Officer with the Golden Police Department, Incorporated.

Defendant had knowledge of, conspired in and/or neglected to prevent or correct, the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Lewis Shellenberger 2031, was operating under color of authority within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

25. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Glenn Moore 1470, was employed as a Sworn Law Enforcement Officer with the Golden Police Department, Incorporated. Defendant had knowledge of, conspired in and/or neglected to prevent or correct, the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Glenn Moore 1470, was operating under color of authority within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

26. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Russell Cook, was employed as the Chief of Police, a Sworn Law Enforcement Officer with the Golden Police Department, Incorporated. Defendant had knowledge that the deprivations were in progress, conspired in and had the power and the duty to prevent or correct the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, causing Plaintiff grievous damages. At all pertinent times herein, Russell Cook, was operating under color of authority within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

27. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Dave Farley, was employed as a Sworn Law Enforcement Officer with the Golden Police Department, Incorporated Internal Affairs Investigation. Defendant had knowledge that the deprivations were in progress, conspired in and had the power and the duty to prevent or correct the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, causing Plaintiff grievous damages. At all pertinent times herein, Dave Farley, was operating under color of authority within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

28 At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Robert Tortora, was employed as a Sworn Law Enforcement Officer with the Golden Police Department, Incorporated Internal Affairs Investigation. Defendant had knowledge that the deprivations were in progress, conspired in and had the power and the duty to prevent or correct the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, causing Plaintiff grievous damages. At all pertinent times herein, Robert Tortora, was operating under color of authority within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

29. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, William Killpatrick, was employed as a Sworn Law Enforcement Officer with the Golden Police Department, Incorporated. Defendant had knowledge that the deprivations were in progress, conspired in and had the power and the duty to prevent or correct the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, causing Plaintiff grievous damages. At all pertinent times herein, William Killpatrick, was operating under color of authority within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

Suite 200, 200 Jefferson County Parkway

Golden, Colorado, 80401

30. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Ronald Beckham, was employed as Jefferson County Sheriff, a Sworn Law Enforcement Officer with the Jefferson County Sheriffs Department, Incorporated. Defendant had knowledge that the deprivations were in progress, instigated and conspired in and had the power and the duty to prevent or correct the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, causing Plaintiff grievous damages. At all pertinent times herein, Ronald Beckham, was operating under color of authority within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

31. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Captain Raymond Fleer, was employed as a Sworn Law Enforcement Officer with the Jefferson County Sheriffs Department, Incorporated, Jefferson County Detention Center. Defendant had knowledge that the deprivations were in progress, instigated and conspired in and had the power and the duty to prevent or correct the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, causing Plaintiff grievous damages. Captain Raymond Fleer, was operating under color of authority within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

32. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Sergeant Leybeda (sic), was employed as a Sworn Law Enforcement Officer with the Jefferson County Sheriffs Department, Incorporated at the Jefferson County Detention Center, Inc. acting in the capacity of Booking Room Commander. Defendant had knowledge that the deprivations were in progress, conspired in and had the power and the duty to prevent or correct the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, causing Plaintiff grievous damages. At all pertinent times herein, Sergeant Leyba (sic), was operating under color of authority within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

33. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Frank Lastoczy, was employed as a Sworn Law Enforcement Officer with the Jefferson County Sheriffs Department, Incorporated. Defendant had knowledge of, conspired in and/or neglected to prevent or correct, the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Frank Lastoczy, was operating under color of authority within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

_________________________________

• U S West, Incorporated

7800 East Orchard Road Suite 190

Englewood, Colorado 80155-6508

34. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Barbara Byers, was employed as staff with the U S West, Incorporated. Defendant had knowledge of, conspired in and/or neglected to prevent or correct, the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Barbara Byers, was operating within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of her employment.

35. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Paula Anderson, was employed as staff with the U S West, Incorporated. Defendant had knowledge of, conspired in and/or neglected to prevent or correct, the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Paula Anderson, was operating within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of her employment.

36. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Elizabeth Kiovsky, was employed as Senior Attorney at Law with the U S West, Incorporated. Defendant had knowledge that the deprivations were in progress, instigated and conspired in and had the power and the duty to prevent or correct the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, causing Plaintiff grievous damages. At all pertinent times herein, Elizabeth Kiovsky, was operating under color of law within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of her employment.

37. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Richard McCormick, was employed as an Executive Officer with the U S West, Incorporated. Defendant had knowledge of, conspired in and/or neglected to prevent or correct, the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. At all pertinent times herein, Richard McCormick, was operating under color of law within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

• United States Attorney

1961 Stout St., Suite. 1100

Denver, CO 80294

38. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, James Allison, was employed as an Attorney at Law with the U.S. Attorneys’ Office. Defendant had knowledge that the deprivations were in progress, conspired in and had the power and the duty to prevent or correct the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, causing Plaintiff grievous damages. At all pertinent times herein, James Allison, was operating under color of law within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

• Office of the Attorney General (Colorado)

1525 Sherman St.

Denver, Colorado 80203

39. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Maury Knaizer, was employed as an Attorney at Law with the Colorado State Attorney Generals’ Office. Defendant had knowledge that the deprivations were in progress, conspired in and had the power and the duty to prevent or correct the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, causing Plaintiff grievous damages. At all pertinent times herein, Maury Knaizer, was operating under color of law within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

• Colorado Supreme Court Grievance Committee

600 Seventeenth Street Suite 510

Denver, Colorado 80202-5435

40. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Linda D. Donnelly, was employed as an Attorney at Law with the Colorado State Supreme Court Grievance Committee. Defendant had knowledge that the deprivations were in progress, conspired in and had the power and the duty to prevent or correct the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, causing Plaintiff grievous damages. At all pertinent times herein, Linda Donnelly, was operating under color of law within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of her employment.

41. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, James Hollaway, was employed as an Attorney at Law with the Colorado State Supreme Court Grievance Committee. Defendant had knowledge that the deprivations were in progress, conspired in and had the power and the duty to prevent or correct the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, causing Plaintiff grievous damages. At all pertinent times herein, John Holloway, was operating under color of law within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

• Federal Bureau of Investigation

Frank A. Loturco

1929 Stout Street Room 1823 Denver, Colorado 80294-1823

42. At all pertinent times herein, Defendant, Frank A. Loturco, was employed as a Sworn Law Enforcement Officer and with a high knowledge of the law with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Defendant had knowledge that the deprivations were in progress and had the power and the duty to prevent or correct the intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, causing Plaintiff grievous damages. Defendant knowingly and intentionally neglected and failed to prevent or correct the intentional, malicious and illegal deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally guaranteed Rights and Protections. At all pertinent times herein, Frank A. Loturco, was operating under color of authority within, without, beyond and in excess of the scope of his employment.

Nature of the Case *

¨ Memorandum in Brief____________________________________ *

---------------------ACCRUING AND CONTINUING DAMAGES----------------------- *

---------------------------------------SUMMARY------------------------------------- *

DAMAGES___________________________________________________________ *

In general usage, a human being, though by statute the term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. Scope and delineation of term is necessary for determining those to whom Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution affords protection since this Amendment expressly applies to "person." Black's Law 6th

"Whoever" includes all persons, agents, and employees; and all officials, public or private. An unincorporated voluntary association does not come within the meaning of the term, "whoever" in an ordinance providing that "whoever" violates certain provisions of the ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor; and such association cannot be convicted for offense-

Bridgeport v. Eagles 97 O. App. 245, 56 0033, 125 NE2d 202.

"Color of Authority" defined. That semblance or presumption of authority sustaining the acts of a public officer which is derived from his apparent title to the office or from a writ or other process in his hands apparently valid and regular.

"Color" defined. An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that which is real. A prima facie or apparent right. Hence, a deceptive appearance; a plausible, assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality; a disguise or pretext.

"Color of Office" defined. Pretense of official right to do act made by one who has no such right. An act under color of office is an act of an officer who claims authority to do the act by reason of his office when the office does not confer on him any such authority.

Prejudice means: a Forejudgement; bias; partiality; preconceived opinion. A leaning toward one side of a cause for some reason together than conviction of its justice. Black’s Law Dictionary 6th. Any and all presumptions and any and all associations in common.

with standing to bring this case, being in possession of all his rights

and protected by the Constitution of the united States and Colorado state:

for the people of the united states of America,

under the American flag of peace, without an attorney, ex rel. state:

1) Ex rel.: for the people of the united states defined: "...But it is the manner of enforcement which gives 42 U.S.C. 1983 its unique importance, for the enforcement is placed in the hands of the people." Each citizen, "acts as a private attorney general who takes on the mantle of the sovereign, guarding for all of us the individual liberties enunciated in the constitution." Section 1983 represents a balancing feature in our governmental structure whereby individual citizens are encouraged to police those who are charged with policing us all. Thus, it is of special import that suits brought under this statute be resolved by a determination of truth." Wood v. Breier, 54 F.R.D. 7, (1972).

• Judicial Capacity

2) The Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., Article III, 1 Note 62 A "controversy" in the constitutional sense must be one that is appropriate for judicial determination, be definite and concrete touching legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests, and be a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through decree of conclusive character.

3) The Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., Article III, 1 Note 64. Exercise of judicial power under the Constitution depends on existence of case or controversy.

4) The Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., Article III, 1 Note 162. Judicial power of United States is vested in federal courts and extends to prosecutions for violations of criminal laws of United States.

• Constitutional Court.

5). The Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., Article III, 1 Note 92. Constitutional Courts. "constitutional courts" are those recognized and provided for in this section and includes Supreme Court and inferior courts which Congress may from time to time ordain and established under authority conferred thereby.

6) The Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., Article III, 1 Note 114.

"district court of the United States" without more, means solely courts created by Congress under this article and not territorial courts.

• Case Law

7) The Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., Article III, 2 Note 131.

This clause embraces alike civil and criminal cases arising under the Constitution and law: both are equally within the dominion of the judicial powers of the United States, and there is nothing in the grant to justify an assertion that whatever power may be exerted over a civil case may not be exerted as fully over a criminal one.

The following facts establish the rules to be used by the court. Notice that the Federal rules of Civil Procedure are written as limits for litigants in the United States District Court. Also notice that while those rules are intended for use in law cases, they do not limit the litigant in law to using just those rules. Indeed those rules cannot limit the relief of litigants in law.

8) The Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., Article III, 1 Note 54

Congress possesses the sole right to say what shall be the forms of proceedings, either in equity or at law, in the courts of the United States, and in what cases an appeal shall be allowed or not;

Congressional power to prescribe procedures to be employed by court created pursuant to this article is limited by the Constitution and specifically by Amendment Seven.

9) The Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., Article III, 1 Note 23.

The Constitution of the United States and Acts of Congress recognize and establish the distinction between law and equity; the remedies in the courts of the United States are, at common law or in equity, not according to the practice of state courts, but according to the principles of common law and equity, as distinguished and defined in that country from which we derive our knowledge of those principles

Distinction between law and equity must be preserved in federal courts under constitutional provision defining judicial power of United States,...Under the Federal Constitution, the distinction between law and equity must be observed. Though, under rule 2, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. all distinctions as to form between actions at law and suits in equity have been abolished, the difference in substance in federal judicial power between law and equity is imbedded in the constitution and remain unaltered.

• Rules

10) P.L. 675 Chapter. 445, 54 Stat. 688, (1940) Congress makes rules for court procedure

11) P.L. 415 Chapter. 631, 48 Stat. 1064, (1934)

Section 2 The court may at any time unite the general rules prescribed by it for cases in equity with those in actions at law so as to secure one form of civil action and procedure or both: Provided, however, That in such union of rules the right of trial by jury as at common law and declared by the seventh amendment to the Constitution shall be preserved to the parties inviolate.

• Applicable Codes

12.) 42 U.S.C.A. 1986- Defendants each had knowledge of the law and did or witnessed wrongs committed in their presence and neglected to correct and prevent.

42 U.S.C.A. 1983- Defendants caused damages.

The neglects of each of the Defendants violated Statutes that bind officers:

18 U.S.C.A. 241- Conspiracy against rights

18 U.S.C.A. 242 - Deprivation of rights in color of authority

18 U.S.C.A. 872 - Extortion in color of authority

18 U.S.C.A. 1621 - Perjury of Oath of Office

The rules of Court show that Defendant’s actions granted no jurisdiction over the Plaintiff in the lower court case.

F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) Failed to State a Claim

F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and (2) Lack’s personam and subject matter jurisdiction

• Constitutional Controversy

12) U.S.C.A., The Constitution of the United States, Article III, Case Note 62

13.) Defendant Judicial Officers, each of them and them all, hereinafter referred to as "Judges", et al, having a superior knowledge of the law and a high standard of the law confirmed by their oath of office, and witnessing the fraud committed by Defendant Officers of the Court, hereinafter referred to as "Attorneys," when those Attorneys brought false actions against Plaintiff enumerated herein in conspiracy with private Citizens, who was not the person named on the complaint; those Defendant Judges, Attorneys, Troops and Citizens, each of them and all of them in each and every cause of action herein of this action, KNOWINGLY caused damages and deprivation and neglected and failed to correct or prevent the wrongs pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C.A., 1986

14.) Defendant Judges, each and every one of them and et al, in court rooms they themselves knowingly colored with an Executive Flag, pursuant to Title 4 U.S.C.A. 1, Part II, in a "Federal Agency", 1994 Act to Reorganize the Govt. 63 Statutes at Large, Chapter 288, Sec. 3(b), the term ‘Federal Agency’ means any executive agency or establishment in the legislative or Judicial branch of government, Title 5, p.739 section 5721.

"Agency" means (C) a court of the United States; took rights from Plaintiff herein, Plaintiff’s rights and liberty, by means of illegal compulsion or oppressive exaction, compelling judgments on Plaintiff when Plaintiff was not named on legal process, by color of Defendant’s office as Judicial Officer in conspiracy with Defendant Attorney 'a office as Officer of the Court in the same Bar Association

15.)Defendant Quasi-Military Troops, hereinafter referred to as "Troops", operating under arms in Color of Authority, conferred by Color of Law, and each and every one of them above titled knowingly and willingly acted in concert and conspiracy with Defendant Judges, Attorneys, Legal Assistants, Corporations, and private Citizens in behalf of Defendant "Persons" to deprive constitutionally guaranteed Rights of this Proper Party Injured.

16.)These acts were committed in high knowledge of the Law, evidenced by each and every "Troop’s" Oath of Office and exacerbated by presentation and threatened use of dangerous weapons, intimidation, duress, fraud and mayhem; when each and every one of the above titled Defendant Troops went in disguise as Police Officers upon the Highways and on the premises of another with the expressed purpose and intent of depriving Plaintiff of constitutionally guaranteed rights at Amendment 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, & 13 of the United States Constitution.

17. This complaint arises from Defendants’ knowing, intentional and unlawful deprivations of Plaintiff's Constitutionally guaranteed Rights in Color of Authority and under Color of STATE Law, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983. These deprivations committed in conspiracy, by agreement and a meeting of the minds between and among Defendants violates 42 U.S.C.§1985. Each Defendant witnessing the wrongs committed, having a duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and having the ability to prevent or correct those wrongs did neglect or refuse to correct or report said wrongs as required by law, and/or conspired to advance or conceal the deprivations herein enumerated, so doing intentionally, willingly and in a high knowledge and responsibility of the law are therefore in unlawful violation of 42 U.S.C. §1986.
18. The deprivations herein enumerated are exacerbated by Defendant's intentional and knowing perjury and subornation to perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621 & 1622.
19. Defendant's actions, in conspiracy, are further aggravated by armed extortion in Color of Authority pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §872 and committing perjured testimony and official documents to the record pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
20. The deprivations of Plaintiff's Constitutionally secured rights enumerated herein in part, subject to amendment, being committed in Color of Authority and under Color of STATE Law by actors sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and the Colorado Constitution, the Judicial Canons and the Codes of Professional Responsibility or the Ethical Rules, Canons or ‘Considerations’ are further aggravated by the material fact that these Actors willingly and knowingly joined in conspiracy and through a Meeting of the minds and a mutual agreement to deprive Plaintiff of Constitutionally guaranteed Rights which defines a conspiracy against rights pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 & 242 and has caused Plaintiff Damages including, but not limited to, false arrest, wrongful detention and incarceration, loss of income and substance, public slander and libel, loss of Family time and consortium, continuing mental anguish, physical harm and pain and associated chronic suffering and such collateral damages to be amended and which continue to accrue and exposed their several professions to scorn and opprobrium.

• Defendant's intentional and unlawful actions have caused Plaintiff, Steve Douglas, Gartin grievous damages from which Plaintiff seeks relief from the Honorable Court.
• As reflected in sworn testimony in the Golden Municipal Court Record Case No.55239:

17. On or about 18 June, 1996 at 6:30 PM the Golden Police Department was called to come to the facility and take a report of a criminal infliction of child abuse perpetrated by Defendant Markus Bernard Merritt, a convicted interstate felon, known as a "Habitual Offender," registered with a Restraining Order for Domestic Violence and with an Active Arrest Warrant from Arapahoe County Colorado.
18. The Golden Recreation Center Staff Employee initiating the Emergency call was Steve Douglas, Gartin, he having observed Defendant Markus Bernard Merritt harshly lay hands upon Elijah Rock, Gartin, a minor who was playing in a secured hazardous area of the facility. The Swimming Pool is ‘Off-Limits’ to non-Registered and non-Fee Paid individuals. The scene of the physical harm and abuse was in the Swimming Pool area, which is Restricted only to pre-paid clients in swimming apparel, Mr. Merritt’s presence was unauthorized.
19. Defendant Merritt, a stranger to the Golden Recreation Center Staff, had initiated an "Emergency" 911 call prior to the time he first proceeded into the restricted Swimming Area or initiated any other contact with Plaintiff, thus demonstrating the Premeditated Intent to Harrass, Threaten, Molest and Assault this Plaintiff and to Kidnap and Molest Plaintiffs Offspring and Heirs. This action on Defendant Merritts part functioned as part of a continuing ‘Plan’ devised in conspiracy with Defendant Antonio Troy Ciccarelli, Esquire, Junior Attorney of the Lawfirm of Karsh & Fulton, P.C. and a member of the Bethlehem Lutheran Church congregation; his Senior directing Partners of the lawfirm, and Tamara Ann Zehnder, another employee of the Legal Department of U S West, Inc., Defendant Officers and employees of U S West as named and unnamed yet to be discovered and also Bethlehem Lutheran Church Officers, Staff and congregation members, and such other members and employees in association.
20. This plan; to Forcibly Kidnap and Abduct Elijah Rock, Gartin and April Rose, Gartin and unlawfully Assault, construct an arrest scenario and imprison Plaintiff. This Assault to prevent Plaintiffs exposure of Defendants rior criminal activities to which the Children had been Witness, and in revenge for and defense to Plaintiffs’ prior application for an Order of Restraint against Defendant Merritt. This earlier and prior application to Judge Roy G. Olsen stemming from Defendants’ prior abuse, assaults and threats to Plaintiff and Plaintiffs Offspring. The dramatically staged phone call had the immediate intent and purpose to falsely ‘log-in’ an incident report by the Golden Police Department and the Golden Recreation Center, enlisting them as accomplices in the criminal plan. The ‘incident’, as reported by Defendant Merritt and Defendant Tamara Ann Zehnder, had not yet commenced. Short moments thereafter, Defendant Merritt entered the Plaintiffs area of Employment and recreation, the restricted Swimming Pool area, along with Defendant Tamara Ann Zehnder and initiated the first attempt to Kidnap April Rose, Gartin and Elijah Rock, Gartin. Although Plaintiff was officially off-duty and in Court ordered custody visitation with his offspring during the assault, Plaintiff felt a direct safety responsibility to the patrons, Adult and Minor, of the Pool as an employee of the Golden Recreation Center-City of Golden.
21. As Plaintiff, the two minor Offspring's Natural Father protested, Defendant Merritt repeatedly attempted to engage Plaintiff to fight with insults, threats about the Children and to Plaintiffs’ access to them as guaranteed by the Court Order. Plaintiff repeatedly declined Defendant Merritts’ direct provocations and molestation. Defendant Merritt forcibly grabbed Elijah Rock, Gartin, a minor child not his own, and pushed him into the pools’ dressing area; Plaintiff followed.
22. When less direct provocations to fight with Plaintiff failed, Defendant Merritt, a trained professional athlete and violent former Professional football player, pretended to stumble, turned and forcefully and aggressively grabbed Plaintiff. Plaintiff again declined to respond violently, when Golden Recreation Center Manager Larry Rock intruded between Plaintiff and the two aggressive perpetrators, Defendants Markus Bernard Merritt and Tamara Ann Zehnder. Larry Rock, a trained and responsible manager of the Golden Recreation Center, physically delayed Plaintiff, a fellow Golden City Employee, while Markus Bernard Merritt, a man unknown to Larry Rock, kidnapped April Rose and Elijah Rock, Gartin, minor patrons of the Golden Recreation Center.
23. Plaintiff requested of Golden Recreation Center Staff Members and Patrons, direct eyewitnesses to the assault and kidnapping, that the Golden Police be called as Plaintiff followed the victims, Elijah and April, Plaintiffs’ natural offspring, into the Golden Recreation Center Parking Lot as they were being Forcibly Kidnapped by Defendant Merritt and Criminally Abducted by Defendant Tamara Zehnder in Contempt of the orders of the Court.
24. Defendant Golden Police Training Officer Michael Moler arrived under arms within 30 seconds of the 911 call, indicating that Defendant Merritts’ ‘Emergency’ call was expected and Defendant Molers’ response and subsequent actions were pre-planned in conspiracy. Three other "Cruisers", containing Glenn Moore, Lewis Shellenberger and Ted Schnack, all Defendant Golden Police Officers under arms, came very short moments thereafter.
25. Defendant Michael Molers attention was directed towards Plaintiff early in the incident, as he immediately and without provocation Arrested Plaintiff for the stated reason;
26. "Obstruction of Justice –No Valid Driver's License," a patently untenable and ridiculous attempt at a justification for Mr. Moler’s excessive and inappropriate actions.
27. Defendant Moler ignored the large, very active black man with the two small frightened white children, those children obviously not his own, in spite of the objections of the obvious and self identified parent, Plaintiff Steve Douglas, Gartin. Defendant Police Training Officer Moler asked no questions, took no information nor gave other than slight diligence to the immediate circumstances of the incident. By the time Defendant Moler actually knew what was going on, he had committed serious procedural and criminal actions that he needed to conceal.
28. Plaintiff, Steve Douglas, Gartin, an active Employee of Golden Recreation Center- City of Golden in good standing, was clothed only in a pocketless bathing suit, having only just emerged from the Swimming Pool alongside his Offspring, April Rose and Elijah Rock, Gartin in order to respond to Defendant Merritts and Zehnders Assaults; Abduction and Kidnappings. Defendant Molers’ armed action in requiring a Drivers License from a man in a bathing suit and refusing proper self identification from another City Employee is beyond any directions of proper Police Training as Defendant Moler self identifies as in which being an Expert Training Officer.
29. Plaintiff made those and other criminal charges immediately and directly to Defendant Moler concerning the other parties to the incident; including Plaintiffs prior request to Judge Olsen’s Court for an Order of Restraint on Defendant Merritt on behalf of the Children and for Plaintiffs’ safety, and with a plain stating of the circumstances of the incident which Defendant Moler pointedly ignored and failed to investigate. Defendant Officer Moler had an previously planned agenda for the incident which was not to be confused or altered. Defendant Moler loudly and dramatically ordered Plaintiff to ‘calm down’ when no possible action by Plaintiff warranted any such reaction from Defendant. This verbal admonition from Defendant Moler was a rehearsed sham and pretense used to seem to justify Defendants treatment of Plaintiff for the onlookers and eyewitnesses.
30. Plaintiff politely and reservedly informed Michael Moler that he, Michael Moler, was trespassing upon Plaintiff's Civil Rights as secured by the Constitution and was in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983. Michael Moler, agitated and threatening and in a state of mind reckless and heedless of the law and in willful disregard for Plaintiff's Rights and Protections, all known to him, refused to cease the Arrest and stated, "I'm the Law around here and I'll do as I please!" Defendant Michael Moler placed handcuffs on the totally compliant, non-combative and peaceful Plaintiff and turned Plaintiff over to another Defendant Golden Police Officer named Ted Schnack, and directed him to "stand-by." Defendant Molers’ forcible arrest of Plaintiff was an improper retaliation for the embarrassment and the threatened exposure engendered by Plaintiff fully informing him of the law and as an exercise and a demonstration of force under color of law to subdue and threaten the populace.
31. At that point Defendant Ted Schnack assumed custody of Plaintiff and ordered Plaintiff into the backarea of the Golden Police Department "Cruiser," and proceeded with an extended attempt at directed conversation or interrogation, which Plaintiff politely declined to joinder. Plaintiff fully informed Defendant Schnack of the deprivation of liberty and trespass upon the Constitutionally secured Rights of the Plaintiff which he, Officer Schnack, was committing, under arms, in color of authority and color of STATE Law, and in Conspiracy with Officer Moler.
32. At no time was Plaintiff Advised of his Rights when placed in custody under arrest. At no time was Plaintiff offered or allowed counsel. At no time did Plaintiff waive his Rights or Protections. At all times Plaintiff requested his Freedom and acknowledgement of his Constitutional Rights and Protections to no avail.
33. During that short time the N.C.I.C. report came over the "Cruiser" radio from such Defendant Law Enforcement agents and agencies responsible, stating that there was an Active Arrest Warrant for Markus Bernard Merritt and also prior criminal convictions for drugs and violence and open Orders of Restraint.
34. Plaintiff, Steve Douglas, Gartin, "came up clear" on Defendant Troops' N.C.I.C. check at the time of this unlawful detention in Arrest.
35. Defendant Golden Police Officers unlawfully arrested Plaintiff in Golden Municipal Case # 55239 without any form of Warrant and without Witnessing any Crime in Commission.
36. Upon reflection on their improvident behavior, Defendant Cops and Defendant Citizens conspired and came to a meeting of minds to form a Material Perjury between them and to adjust the official report of the incident in order to minimize mistakes made by the arresting officers in return for detaining Plaintiff and ignoring the Kidnapping and Abduction of his Offspring by Defendants.
37. This puerile attempt at a material factual revision and redaction for purposes of perjury and obstruction of justice is reflected in the materially different several versions of the event as reported by the each of the several Defendants and they again differently at severally different times, and they again materially different compared and contrasted with the descriptive reports from bystanders, the kidnapped and abducted children themselves and Plaintiffs account and actions, and it all contained in the Courts record, and available for immediate review as sure and certain evidence of Defendants conscious perjuries.
38. Said unlawful arrest and detention being committed under force of arms aggravates the trespass and assault upon the person of the Plaintiff and has caused damages.

• CLAIM I - Unlawful Arrest

• CLAIM II – Defendant Golden Police Armed Assault

Plaintiff incorporates Brief and CLAIM I herein as if fully reproduced. The foregoing arrest by Golden Police Officers was accomplished by the threat and presentation of deadly force by way of semi-automatic firearm weapons in force of armed troops disguised as Golden Police Department.

These unlawful actions committed in color of authority and in color of STATE Law, knowingly and intentionally and deliberately, heedless and reckless of the law as being fully informed by this Plaintiff concerning the responsibility of each Sworn Law Enforcement Officer to defend and protect the Constitutionally secured Rights of the People to be free from unlawful or Warrantless arrests or searches and seizures.

Said unlawful arrest being committed under force of arms aggravates the Trespass and Assault upon the person of the Plaintiff and has caused damages

• CLAIM III – Denial and Failure

Plaintiff incorporates CLAIMS I and II herein as if fully reproduced. Defendant Golden Police did not Witness the commission of any crime by the Plaintiff. Defendant Golden Police did not possess an Arrest Warrant for the Plaintiff. Defendant Golden Police had no Probable Cause to petition a Magistrate for the issuance of an Arrest Warrant. Defendant Golden Police Officers refused and failed and gave slight diligence to investigation of criminal charges made by Plaintiff at the time and place of the incident, with all participants intact and with eyewitnesses immediately available.

Defendant Golden Police Officers knowingly, maliciously, deliberately and intentionally deprived and denied Plaintiff of his Rights to Due Process of Law, Equal Protection of the Law without fear or favor, and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law of proper jurisdiction, in order to conceal their Collusion and their joint and several failures and dilatory neglect to even slightly perform to minimum professional standards in Golden Municipal Case # 55239.

• CLAIM IV - Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Plaintiff re-alleges CLAIMS I through III. Defendant Michael Moler's handcuffing of Plaintiff constitutes Cruel & Unusual Punishment as no crime was committed either within or without Defendant Michael Moler's presence or in his knowledge, nor did Defendant Moler have any reason to believe or probable cause to suspect that a crime had been committed that would justify handcuffing Plaintiff.

Defendant Michael Moler, a Training Officer of Golden Police Department, Inc. of superior knowledge of the law and of Police Procedure, under arms, being fully informed by his own admission in his report of the incident, acted in malice and in full knowledge of the unlawfulness of his actions and in reckless and heedless disregard of his sworn duty pursuant to the United States Constitution and the Law of the Land, which is Due Process of the Common Law.

Defendant Police Training Officer Moler neglected and failed to read or have caused to be read to Plaintiff, his Rights and Protections under the Constitution, a gross neglect and failure and lack of due diligence, reckless and heedless of the law and the Constitutions. Defendant's reckless and heedless disregard of the Plaintiff's Constitutionally secured Rights has caused Plaintiff damages.

• CLAIM V - Denial of Due Process

Plaintiff re-alleges CLAIMS I through IV. Defendant Golden Police Troops; Moler, Schnack Moore and Shellenberger were provided an N.C.I.C. Report by Police Radio from the CBI and FBI, while on site during the incident, that informed them that Defendant Markus Bernard Merritt, a Negro felon and Habitual Offender, had an Active Arrest Warrant from Arapahoe County.

Neglecting minimum performance standards of Police Procedure and Policy, Golden Police Officers arrested Plaintiff, who had no warrants, instead of Defendant Merritt who had Active Warrants and a prior Criminal Record of serious and violent criminal activity.

Defendant Cops suborned and accepted perjury from their confidential police informant, Defendant Merritt. Slight diligence in the comparison of the various reports contained in the Courts own record in Case No.55239 is sure and certain incontrovertible evidence of such perjury suborned and given between Defendants.

• CLAIM VI: Denial of Due Process,

Plaintiff re-alleges CLAIMS I through V and incorporates all as if reproduced in full herein. The Staff of the Golden Recreation Center; Defendants Beverly Koenig and such others and for the City of Golden, Defendants Theresa Reilly, Mike Bestor, Russell Cook, each of them and them all, colluded and conspired and in a meeting of minds, with perjurers; Defendants Markus Bernard Merritt and Tamara Ann Zehnder, Robert Victor Zehnder, Delores Jeane Lynne Zehnder, Antonio Troy Ciccarelli and his directing lawyers, officers and staff of U S West, Incorporated, Bethlehem Lutheran Church of the Missouri Synod, and such other named Defendants, perjured their own oath of office and/or failed to act to even slight standards of professional performance as they failed and neglected to provide and failed to maintain a safe working environment and work place; and failed to provide true, or deliberately provided false and misleading, material information to law enforcement authorities regarding the disturbing event involving a Golden Recreation Center Staff Member, Steve Douglas, Gartin, Plaintiff and such other unauthorized intruders at the Golden Recreation Center, herein described.

Such actions by all Defendants were knowing, deliberate and for the purpose of the material obstruction of justice and the deliberate and knowing denial or deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Rights and Protections under the Constitutions.

Said Defendants failures to their fiduciary duty and neglect to secure the Facility, adequately supervise management and staff and procedures, and the perjuries committed by Defendant Golden Recreation Center Staff and Management to deprive Plaintiff of Plaintiffs Constitutionally guaranteed Rights and Protections have caused Plaintiff damages.

• CLAIM VII: Aiding and Abetting a Forcible Kidnapping

by Color of Authority to Deny Constitutional Rights

Plaintiff re-alleges CLAIM I through VI and incorporates all as if reproduced in full herein. The Staff of the Golden Recreation Center, each of them and them all, having a duty and responsibility, egregiously neglected and failed to safeguard a minor white female, April Rose, Gartin, a patron of the Golden Recreation Center, from delivery into the hands of a Convicted Felon. Defendant Merritt, a black man; a man with an outstanding Restraining Order of the Court, an Active Arrest Warrant, and a MultiState Record as an Habitual Offender, a Woman and Child abuser of previous conviction, and a complete stranger to the Staff of the Golden Recreation Center, entered a Restricted Area, forcibly assaulted a Golden Recreation Center Staff Member and stole two children, visibly not his own, from the premises.

• CLAIM VIII: Aiding and abetting a Forcible Kidnapping