Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
4Activity

Table Of Contents

0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Gottschalk Federal Complaint - Amended June 2009

Gottschalk Federal Complaint - Amended June 2009

Ratings: (0)|Views: 621|Likes:
Published by dean3052
Georgia Political Figures & other State or County Elected Officials Named as Defendants in Amended Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit

Suit sets the stage for a Constitutional challenge of prominent state statute regarding rights & issues of custody arrangements of minor children in instances of separation and/or divorce of parents.

Marietta (Atlanta), Georgia, June 26, 2009 - As our country prepares to commemorate its’ anniversary of our claim of Independence from oppression and tyranny from outside forces, many may ponder if our country has truly achieved a long lasting relief not just from those external forces, but more importantly, from the suppression of and attacks on the very freedoms we are supposedly celebrating coming from within the internal ranks of our very own countrymen.

The Gottschalk v. Gottschalk, et al federal complaint, initially filed in April, 2009 in the Atlanta Division of the United States Federal District Court, Northern District of Georgia, was re-submitted last week following a major re-write to strengthen the claims being levied against a host of state actors that is a virtual Who’s Who list of elected or appointed administrative and judicial state and county level officials.

Case # 1:09-CV-1013, was filed in response to ongoing actions or inactions, taken either directly or indirectly, by the named defendants stemming from underlying civil matters involving two minor children originating in Cobb County Superior Court dating back to 2004. The defendant list includes; Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue, Georgia Attorney General Thurbert E. Baker, Cobb Superior Court judges C. LaTain Kell & S. Lark Ingram, all five current members of the Cobb County Board of Commissioners, all current members of the Georgia State Board of Examiners of Psychologists and the Georgia Composite Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers and Marriage and Family Therapists, Guardian ad Litem Diane Woods of Huff, Woods & Hamby, Marietta, psychologists Sheri M. Siegel and Susan Z. Volentine, Marietta therapist Emmett Fuller, and attorneys Michael Manely of the Manely Firm, PC and Barbara Lassiter of Paller & Creasy, Atlanta.

The complaint, centered around violations of 42 USC §§ 1983, 1985(3), 1986, 1988, 28 USC §§ 1331, 1343, and the 1st, 4th, 5th & 14th Amendments to the US Constitution, is set to challenge not only the individual behaviors of the named defendants, but will also be challenging what is characterized as the “shadow justice” system that functions within the country’s system of “Family” courts, and how the “best interest of the child” standard is applied, or more accurately, misapplied, under state statutes, locally O.C.G.A. 19-9-3.

O.C.G.A. 19-9-3 currently allows judges unlimited and complete discretionary power to modify and restrict both a parent’s and a child’s right to unfettered parent-child association without the necessity of showing any material change in conditions, or any lack of fitness of the parents. The complaint’s thirteen Counts are as follows –

Count 1 – Violation of Procedural Due Process
Count 2 – Violation of Equal Protection
Count 3 – Violation of Substantive Due Process
Count 4 – Conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983(3)
Count 5 – Cruel & Unusual Punishment
Count 6 – Negligent Supervision & Training
Count 7 – Retaliation for Exercise of Civil Rights
Count 8 – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Count 9 – Negligent Disclosure of Confidential Medical Info
Count 10 - Slander
Count 11 - Libel
Count 12 – Invasion of Privacy
Count 13 – Declaratory Judgment

Declaratory judgments, permanent injunctions, along with both compensatory and punitive damages are currently being sought.

Press Contacts: 678-643-3786
Georgia Political Figures & other State or County Elected Officials Named as Defendants in Amended Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit

Suit sets the stage for a Constitutional challenge of prominent state statute regarding rights & issues of custody arrangements of minor children in instances of separation and/or divorce of parents.

Marietta (Atlanta), Georgia, June 26, 2009 - As our country prepares to commemorate its’ anniversary of our claim of Independence from oppression and tyranny from outside forces, many may ponder if our country has truly achieved a long lasting relief not just from those external forces, but more importantly, from the suppression of and attacks on the very freedoms we are supposedly celebrating coming from within the internal ranks of our very own countrymen.

The Gottschalk v. Gottschalk, et al federal complaint, initially filed in April, 2009 in the Atlanta Division of the United States Federal District Court, Northern District of Georgia, was re-submitted last week following a major re-write to strengthen the claims being levied against a host of state actors that is a virtual Who’s Who list of elected or appointed administrative and judicial state and county level officials.

Case # 1:09-CV-1013, was filed in response to ongoing actions or inactions, taken either directly or indirectly, by the named defendants stemming from underlying civil matters involving two minor children originating in Cobb County Superior Court dating back to 2004. The defendant list includes; Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue, Georgia Attorney General Thurbert E. Baker, Cobb Superior Court judges C. LaTain Kell & S. Lark Ingram, all five current members of the Cobb County Board of Commissioners, all current members of the Georgia State Board of Examiners of Psychologists and the Georgia Composite Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers and Marriage and Family Therapists, Guardian ad Litem Diane Woods of Huff, Woods & Hamby, Marietta, psychologists Sheri M. Siegel and Susan Z. Volentine, Marietta therapist Emmett Fuller, and attorneys Michael Manely of the Manely Firm, PC and Barbara Lassiter of Paller & Creasy, Atlanta.

The complaint, centered around violations of 42 USC §§ 1983, 1985(3), 1986, 1988, 28 USC §§ 1331, 1343, and the 1st, 4th, 5th & 14th Amendments to the US Constitution, is set to challenge not only the individual behaviors of the named defendants, but will also be challenging what is characterized as the “shadow justice” system that functions within the country’s system of “Family” courts, and how the “best interest of the child” standard is applied, or more accurately, misapplied, under state statutes, locally O.C.G.A. 19-9-3.

O.C.G.A. 19-9-3 currently allows judges unlimited and complete discretionary power to modify and restrict both a parent’s and a child’s right to unfettered parent-child association without the necessity of showing any material change in conditions, or any lack of fitness of the parents. The complaint’s thirteen Counts are as follows –

Count 1 – Violation of Procedural Due Process
Count 2 – Violation of Equal Protection
Count 3 – Violation of Substantive Due Process
Count 4 – Conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983(3)
Count 5 – Cruel & Unusual Punishment
Count 6 – Negligent Supervision & Training
Count 7 – Retaliation for Exercise of Civil Rights
Count 8 – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Count 9 – Negligent Disclosure of Confidential Medical Info
Count 10 - Slander
Count 11 - Libel
Count 12 – Invasion of Privacy
Count 13 – Declaratory Judgment

Declaratory judgments, permanent injunctions, along with both compensatory and punitive damages are currently being sought.

Press Contacts: 678-643-3786

More info:

Published by: dean3052 on Jul 10, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/04/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA  ATLANTA DIVISIONDEAN MARK GOTTSCHALK,Plaintiffvs.KAREN ANN GOTTSCHALK,BARBARA LASSITER, Esq., MICHAEL MANELY, Esq.,THE MANELY FIRM, PCHON. S. LARK INGRAM,HON. C. LATAIN KELL,DIANNE WOODS,HUFF, WOODS & HAMBY,SONNY PURDUE, in his officialcapacity as Governor of the Stateof Georgia,THURBERT E. BAKER, in hisofficial capacity as AttorneyGeneral for the State of Georgia,CAROL L. WEBB, LINDA F. CAMPBELL,F. KARL DOUGLASS, BILLDOVERSPIKE, JR., DONALD S. MECK, MARSHA B. SAULS, in theirofficial capacities as members ofthe GEORGIA STATE BOARD OFEXAMINERS OF PSYCHOLOGISTS,COBB COUNTY, a politicalsubdivision of the State ofGeorgia,GEORGE WILLIAM “BILL” QUARTERMAN,GENE THOMAS SCHRADER, HELEN W.COALE, ERIC GROH, PATRICIA RICEHARWELL, JAVEL JACKSON, JANET H.LENARD, JAN LIGON, in theirofficial capacity as members ofthe GEORGIA COMPOSITE BOARD OF))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) CIVIL ACTION FILE No.: 1:09-CV-1013-BBM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
 
2
PROFESSIONAL COUNSELORS, SOCIAL WORKERS AND MARRIAGE AND FAMILYTHERAPISTS,SAMUEL S. OLENS, TIM LEE, HELENGOREHAM, WOODY THOMPSON, and BOBOTT, in their official capacityas members of the COBB COUNTYBOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,SHERI M. SIEGEL,EMMETT FULLER,SUSAN VOLENTINE,PSYCHOLOGICAL AFFILIATES, PC, ANN BOST,LARRY O. BOST,JANE DOEJOHN DOEDefendants))
 
 MORE DEFINITE AMENDED and RESTATED COMPLAINTIntroduction
Dean Mark Gottschalk (“Plaintiff” or “I” or “Me”), ofGeorgia, hereby asserts the following claims against Defendantsin the above-referenced action:(1)
 
Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 denial of equalprotection of the law under the 14
th
Amendment to theUnited States Constitution;(2)
 
Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - denial of proceduraldue process of law under the 14
th
Amendment to theUnited States Constitution;(3)
 
Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 denial of substantivedue process of law under the 14
th
Amendment to theUnited States Constitution;(4)
 
Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985(3),conspiracy;(5)
 
Intentional infliction of emotional distress.
 
3
Jurisdiction
 1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to:a. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983(civil action for deprivation of rights,1985(conspiracy to interfere with civil rights), 1986 and1988(proceedings in vindication of civil rights); and 28U.S.C. 1331, 1343(1), (2), (3), and (4)(civil rights andelective franchise), and 1367(a)(supplemental jurisdiction);b. Pendant Jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).Jurisdiction of this court for the pendent claims isauthorized by F.R.Civ.P. 18(a), and arises under the doctrineof pendent jurisdiction as set forth in United Mine Workersv. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966).
 Venue based on Location of Parties and Events
 2. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331& 1391(a) because all the parties reside, work or operatein this District and because the location of the civilrights injury/ deprivation/ denial is in this District.3. This complaint is not frivolous.4. This is a proceeding for declaratory relief, and permanentinjunction, enjoining all defendants, and each of them, theiragents, employees and successors from continuing their policy,practice, and actions depriving me of the privileges andimmunities as a citizen of the United Sates, as further setforth herein.

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Mark Anthony liked this
signevaughan liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->