You are on page 1of 56

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA


ATLANTA DIVISION

DEAN MARK GOTTSCHALK, )


)
Plaintiff )
)
vs. )
)
KAREN ANN GOTTSCHALK, )
BARBARA LASSITER, Esq., )
MICHAEL MANELY, Esq., )
THE MANELY FIRM, PC )
HON. S. LARK INGRAM, ) CIVIL ACTION FILE
HON. C. LATAIN KELL, ) No.: 1:09-CV-1013-BBM
DIANNE WOODS, )
HUFF, WOODS & HAMBY, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
SONNY PURDUE, in his official )
capacity as Governor of the State )
of Georgia, )
THURBERT E. BAKER, in his )
official capacity as Attorney )
General for the State of Georgia, )
CAROL L. WEBB, LINDA F. CAMPBELL, )
F. KARL DOUGLASS, BILL )
DOVERSPIKE, JR., DONALD S. MECK, )
MARSHA B. SAULS, in their )
official capacities as members of )
the GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF )
EXAMINERS OF PSYCHOLOGISTS, )
COBB COUNTY, a political )
subdivision of the State of )
Georgia, )
GEORGE WILLIAM “BILL” QUARTERMAN, )
GENE THOMAS SCHRADER, HELEN W. )
COALE, ERIC GROH, PATRICIA RICE )
HARWELL, JAVEL JACKSON, JANET H. )
LENARD, JAN LIGON, in their )
official capacity as members of )
the GEORGIA COMPOSITE BOARD OF )

1
PROFESSIONAL COUNSELORS, SOCIAL )
WORKERS AND MARRIAGE AND FAMILY )
THERAPISTS,
SAMUEL S. OLENS, TIM LEE, HELEN
GOREHAM, WOODY THOMPSON, and BOB
OTT, in their official capacity
as members of the COBB COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
SHERI M. SIEGEL,
EMMETT FULLER,
SUSAN VOLENTINE,
PSYCHOLOGICAL AFFILIATES, PC,
ANN BOST,
LARRY O. BOST,
JANE DOE
JOHN DOE
Defendants

MORE DEFINITE AMENDED and RESTATED COMPLAINT


Introduction

Dean Mark Gottschalk (“Plaintiff” or “I” or “Me”), of

Georgia, hereby asserts the following claims against Defendants

in the above-referenced action:

(1) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 denial of equal


protection of the law under the 14th Amendment to the
United States Constitution;
(2) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - denial of procedural
due process of law under the 14th Amendment to the
United States Constitution;
(3) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 denial of substantive
due process of law under the 14th Amendment to the
United States Constitution;
(4) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985(3),
conspiracy;
(5) Intentional infliction of emotional distress.

2
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 and
1988(proceedings in vindication of civil rights); and 28
U.S.C. 1331, 1343(1), (2), (3), and (4)(civil rights and
elective 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 is
authorized by F.R.Civ.P. 18(a), and arises under the doctrine
of pendent jurisdiction as set forth in United Mine Workers
v. 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 operate
in this District and because the location of the civil
rights injury/ deprivation/ denial is in this District.
3. This complaint is not frivolous.
4. This is a proceeding for declaratory relief, and permanent
injunction, enjoining all defendants, and each of them, their
agents, employees and successors from continuing their policy,
practice, and actions depriving me of the privileges and
immunities as a citizen of the United Sates, as further set
forth herein.

3
Parties
5. DEAN MARK GOTTSCHALK, Plaintiff, 2589 Beckwith Trail,
Marietta, GA 30068, is an individual residing in Cobb County,
Georgia. I am a white, heterosexual male.
6. KAREN ANN GOTTSCHALK (“Defendant Gottschalk”), 3580 Oak
Knoll Dr., Marietta, GA, 30068, is an individual residing in
Cobb County, Georgia, and my former wife.
7. BARBARA LASSITER (“Defendant Lassiter”), 1700 Water Place
NW, Suite 306, Atlanta, GA, 30339, is an attorney licensed in
the state of Georgia and practicing in Cobb County Georgia, and
represents my ex-wife, Karen Ann Gottschalk in the underlying
state litigation in the trial court presided over by Defendant
Kell. On information and belief, Defendant Lassiter is a
homosexual female.
8. HON. C. LATAIN KELL (“Defendant Kell”), 30 Waddell Street,
Marietta, GA 30090 is a judge of the Superior Court of the State
of Georgia, Cobb Judicial Circuit.
9. HON. S. LARK INGRAM (“Defendant Ingram”) is the Chief Judge
of the Superior Court of the State of Georgia, Cobb Judicial
Circuit. At all times herein, Defendant Ingram supervises,
commands, and controls Defendant Kell.
10. DIANNE WOODS, 707 Whitlock Avenue, SW, Suite G-5, Marietta,
GA 30064 (“Defendant Woods”)is a licensed attorney in the State
of Georgia and was appointed and did act as Guardian Ad Litem in
the Underlying Action.
11. HUFF, WOODS & HAMBY, 707 Whitlock Avenue, SW, Suite G-5,
Marietta, GA 30064 (“Defendant Huff, Woods & Hamby”) is a

4
partnership one of whose partners is Defendant Woods, and who
employs Defendant Woods.
12. MICHAEL MANELEY (“Defendant Maneley”), 7 Atlanta St., Suite
C, Marietta, GA, 30060, is an attorney licensed in the state of
Georgia and practicing in Cobb County Georgia, and represented
my ex-wife, Karen Ann Gottschalk in the Underlying Action at the
time it was presided over by The Hon. Adele Grubbs.
13. THE MANELEY FIRM, PC (“Defendant The Maneley Firm”), 7
Atlanta St., Suite C, Marietta, GA, 30060, is a professional
corporation formed in the state of Georgia attorney, employing
and supervising the efforts of Defendant Michael Maneley.
14. COBB COUNTY, GEORGIA, 100 Cherokee Street, Marietta, GA,
30090, is a political subdivision of the State of Georgia.
15. SAMUEL S. OLENS, TIM LEE, HELEN GOREHAM, WOODY THOMPSON,
and BOB OTT, in their official capacity as members of the COBB
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (“Defendant Board of
Commissioners”), 100 Cherokee Street, Marietta, GA 30090, is the
governing body of Defendant Cobb County. Defendant Board of
Commissioners oversees and operates the administrative aspects
of the Cobb County court system. Defendant Board of
Commissioners is the policy-maker for Cobb County, Georgia, and
funds, in part, the operation of the Cobb County Superior Court.
Defendant Board of Commissioners exerts control and influence
over the conduct of the courts through their funding of the
courts, as well as other means.
16. SONNY PURDUE, State Capitol, Atlanta, GA 30334(“Defendant
Purdue”) is the governor of the State of Georgia.

5
17. THURBERT BAKER, 40 Capitol Square, SW, Atlanta, GA 30334
(“Defendant Baker”) is the Attorney General of the State of
Georgia, who is responsible to protect the public as well as to
uphold the laws and the Constitution of Georgia.
18. CAROL L. WEBB, LINDA F. CAMPBELL, F. KARL DOUGLASS, BILL
DOVERSPIKE, JR., DONALD S. MECK, MARSHA B. SAULS, 237 Coliseum
Drive, Macon, GA 31217 (“Defendant Board of Psychologists”), are
all members of the Georgia State Board of Examiners of
Psychologists, a political subdivision of the State of Georgia,
formed to provide consumer protection and public health and
welfare through the regulation of the profession, and to
investigate and adjudicate complaints issued against licensed
psychologists. Defendant Board of Psychologists regulates and
controls the practice of psychology in the state of Georgia,
including, in particular, practice by Defendants Siegel and
Volentine.
19. DEFENDANTS GEORGE WILLIAM “BILL” QUARTERMAN, GENE THOMAS
SCHRADER, HELEN W. COALE, ERIC GROH, PATRICIA RICE HARWELL,
JAVEL JACKSON, JANET H. LENARD, JAN LIGON, 237 Coliseum Drive,
Macon, GA 31217-3858, are all members of the Georgia Composite
Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers And Marriage
And Family Therapists (“Defendant Composite Board of
Professional Counselors, Social Workers And Marriage And Family
Therapists”), a political subdivision, charged by law with
regulating the practice of professional counseling, social work,
and marriage and family therapy in order to protect the health,
safety and welfare of the people of Georgia, by enforcing the

6
education and training requirements established by law for
licensure in each profession, by adopting and enforcing a code
of ethics governing licensees, by establishing and enforcing
continuing education requirements, and by addressing unlicensed
practice in these professions. Defendant Composite Board of
Professional Counselors, Social Workers And Marriage And Family
Therapists regulates and controls the practice of counseling,
social work, and marriage and family therapy in the state of
Georgia, including, in particular, practice by Defendant Fuller.
20. SHERI M. SIEGEL (“Defendant Siegel”), 125 Church Street,
Ste. 210, Marietta, GA, 30060, is a clinical psychologist who
evaluated the minor children, and who testified against me in
the Underlying Action before Defendant Kell.
21. EMMETT FULLER (“Defendant Fuller”), 899 Burns St. SE,
Marietta, GA, 30067, is a licensed professional counselor,
practicing in Marietta, Georgia, and who provided therapeutic
counseling to me, but then testified against me in the
Underlying Action before Defendant Kell. Defendant Fuller
disclosed my confidential patient-therapist communications to
Defendant Woods and Defendant Volentine.
22. SUSAN Z. VOLENTINE (“Defendant Volentine”), 2688 Tritt
Springs Drive, Marietta, GA, 30062, is a licensed psychologist
practicing in the state of Georgia and who testified against me
in the Underlying Action before Defendant Kell.
23. PSYCHOLOGICAL AFFILIATES, PC (“Defendant Psychological
Affiliates”), 122 Cherry Street NE, Marietta, GA, 30060, employs

7
and directs the conduct of Defendants Volentine and Fuller and
is responsible for their actions.
24. ANN BOST, 231 Greencrest Ct., Marietta, GA, 30068
(“Defendant Ann Bost”) is the mother of Defendant Gottschalk.
25. LARRY BOST 231 Greencrest Ct., Marietta, GA, 30068
(“Defendant Larry Bost”) is the father of Defendant Gottschalk.

Plain Statement of Facts as Required by the Federal Rules of


Civil Procedure
26. On May 2, 1998, I married Karen Ann Gottschalk. Two
children were born of our marriage, Lexi Gottschalk, born
on July 20, 1999 and Tanner Gottschalk born on July 24,
2002. Lexi Gottschalk and Tanner Gottschalk are minor
children (the “Minor Children”).
27. As life would have it, the marriage did not last. On
February 19, 2004, Defendant Gottschalk filed for divorce.
28. On March 31, 2005, Judge Grubbs granted a final judgment
and decree of divorce.
29. Defendants Maneley and The Maneley Firm, P.C., drafted an
order that did not follow Judge Grubbs’ verbal findings,
and limited my time and decision making beyond what was
intended by the Court.
30. Judge Grubbs adopted the Defendant Maneley’s draft order
verbatim.
31. I was not made aware at the time that I had a right to
contest the inaccuracies in the order.

8
32. Unhappy with the result, Defendant Gottschalk sought and
found new counsel, Defendant Lassiter.
33. On information and belief, Defendant Lassiter harbors bias
and resentment against me because I am a heterosexual man.
34. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk conspired with each
other and acted to deny me my civil rights.
35. On April 24, 2006, by and through Defendant Lassiter,
Defendant Gottschalk filed a Petition for Modification of
Visitation under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3.
36. In the petition, Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk
demanded that my contact with my children be supervised,
and my parental rights curtailed.1
37. Defendants embellish facts, alleging in the complaint that
I had been “arrested for aggravated assault” by threatening
someone with a shotgun in a “road rage incident”. I never
admitted any guilt, but entered a plea under the authority
of North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), to a
simple act of pointing a weapon. I never engaged in any
alleged “road rage” behaviors nor was I ever convicted of
aggravated assault.
38. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk alleged that I was
violent, and was a threat to my children. This is and was
untrue.

1
In reality, Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk likely wanted a change of
custody, but feared meeting the “material change in circumstances” standard
applicable. See O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3. Instead they brought the action as one
seeking a change of visitation because such changes are not subject to any
showing of fitness or any change in circumstances.

9
39. Defendant Gottschalk enlisted the help of Defendants Ann
and Larry Bost, who placed me under unauthorized
surveillance on numerous occasions, and reported my
activity to local law enforcement and other government
authorities including the county zoning board.

The Shadow Justice System


40. Cobb County is somewhat unique among the Georgia counties
in the manner that it handles domestic cases involving
contested custody. There is a de facto “shadow justice”
system that functions by designating a Guardian Ad Litem
under U.S.C.R. 24.9, usually an old, established one that
has been doing it for 20 or 30 years, to “evaluate” the
case.
41. The Guardian Ad Litem then typically appoints a custodial
evaluator.
42. The attorneys for the parties go along with this process,
and refrain from a zealous advocacy for their clients.
43. The report and recommendation of the Guardian Ad Litem,
made first to the parties and then to the Court, is more
than merely advisory, becomes the de facto ruling of the
Court, and are in practice extremely difficult to
challenge.
44. This system operates to protect the state actor
participants and quickly dispose of family law cases
without the need for a protracted trial on the merits.

10
45. The Cobb County Courts give great deference to the
appointed Guardians Ad Litem, and protects them.
46. Attorneys and litigants that challenge or fail to “go
along” with this shadow justice system are chastised by the
court officials through unofficial and official means, such
as the power of contempt, refusal to seriously consider
evidence, and declining to hear significant issues.
47. As a result, the Guardians frequently are allowed to ignore
the rules of court and Georgia law in the conduct of their
duties, including, for example, the filing of proper
motions, and rules regarding ex-parté communications with
the Court.

Pre-Trial Actions
48. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk used their embellished
allegations to inflame the attention of the court.
49. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk then conspired to have a
Guardian Ad Litem appointed in my case. Without a formal
request from either side, or motion therefore, Judge
Grubbs, sua sponte, appointed a Guardian Ad Litem,
Defendant Woods. Unbeknownst to me, Defendant Woods was
given full authority to access all of my medical records,
including my mental health records despite the existence of
Georgia law making such records absolutely privileged.
50. Defendant Woods has been acting as a Guardian Ad Litem for
over 20 years, is viewed as a “fixture” in Cobb County, and
Cobb County Superior Court judges routinely defer in

11
substantial part to her judgment when she is appointed as a
Guardian Ad Litem.
51. Despite this being only a visitation case, Defendant Woods
furthered the conspiracy with Defendants Gottschalk and
Lassiter by filing a motion seeking a full custodial
evaluation by Defendant Siegel to be administered not only
on myself and Defendant Gottschalk, but upon The Minor
Children also. Custodial evaluations are done in cases
where custody is at issue, which was not the case here.
52. In that motion Defendant Woods represented that she had the
agreement of my counsel, however, I was never made aware of
the consequences of this action or that a full custodial
evaluation was being requested.
53. As a result of the mandatory custodial evaluation, I was
forced to undergo examination and evaluation by a custodial
evaluator.
54. Following the custodial evaluation, I was ordered to
undergo therapy with Defendant Fuller. I understood this to
be a confidential, therapeutic relationship intended to
enhance communication with Defendant Gottschalk. Defendant
Fuller furthered the conspiracy by failing to advise me
that he could or would disclose my statements or his
impressions of me to Defendant Woods or Defendant
Volentine.
55. Unbeknownst to me, Defendant Fuller and Defendant Volentine
were both associates with Defendant Psychological
Affiliates, and discussed my alleged condition in secret.

12
56. As a result of the mandatory treatment, I was forced to
undergo weeks of examination and evaluation by Defendant
Fuller.
57. Defendant Fuller never administered any recognized tests to
me, nor was he retained to evaluate me. Despite this,
after a mere two weeks of “treatment”, Defendant Fuller
suddenly announced that he had made a psychological
diagnosis of me.
58. Defendant Fuller shared his findings with Defendant Woods,
who in turn shared those findings with others.

Attempts to Hide Secret Custodial Report


59. Defendants conspired to conduct a secret custodial
evaluation of me, and shield it from professional review.
60. Defendant Woods requested special court order language
intended to severely restrict circulation and punish
unauthorized distribution of the report.
61. On information and belief Defendant Woods took this action
primarily in response to having been previously sued over
her recommendations in another custodial case, and not out
of any interest of the parties or the minor children.
62. Judge Grubbs thereafter issued an order that unauthorized
distribution of the custody evaluation report would be
punishable by contempt.
63. The same order directed that a copy was to be provided to
counsel and Defendant Woods.

13
Conspiracy to Issue Biased Report
64. Defendant Woods’ pattern of practice is to send business to
her close associates.
65. On information and belief, Defendant Woods and Siegel have
a long professional relationship.
66. Based on Defendant Woods’ recommendation, Defendants
secured the appointment of Defendant Siegel as the custody
evaluator in my case, and I was court ordered to see her.
67. Prior to my initial meeting with Defendant Siegel,
Defendants Gottschalk and Lassiter in secret submitted to
Defendant Siegel a mountain of alleged documentation
critical of me that Defendant Siegel admitted weighed at
least 25 pounds.
68. On information and belief, this documentation was intended
to heavily bias Defendant Siegel before she met me, and
skew the results of what was intended as an objective
analysis. Defendant Siegel failed to disclose this to me.
69. Defendant Siegel thereafter conducted an examination and
evaluation of the parties, and issued a report.
70. Her report concluded that I had no level of clinical
pathology to support a diagnosis. However, she
nevertheless inserted prejudicial statements in her report
critical of my parenting and my psychological well-being.
The report insinuated and implied that I may have
tendencies toward certain ill-defined conditions, the net
effect of which denied me a valid or scientific evaluation.

14
Secret Evaluations of the Children
71. Disregarding my rights as joint legal custodian, Defendant
Gottschalk arranged without my knowledge and in secret to
take the Minor Children to Defendant Volentine for a series
of evaluations.
72. On information and belief, the purpose of the evaluations
was to establish a false record that I was a threat to my
children.
73. I was denied knowledge of these sessions, which had
occurred both in-person and over the phone, and which I
discovered only afterwards. I was refused attendance and
participation in these sessions. I was refused access to
the health records created as a result of these secret
evaluations.
74. Following the secret evaluations, Defendant Volentine
issued secret communications to Defendants Lassiter and
Gottschalk, insinuating that I might be a threat to my
children.
75. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk then filed an
“emergency” motion on March 10, 2008, containing gross
exaggerations and embellishments of actions they claimed to
occur that were dangers to my children. That motion was
denied by the Court.

Secret Suggestions about Psychological Condition of Defendant


76. Despite my rights as joint legal and physical custodian,
Defendant Gottschalk unilaterally retained Defendant

15
Volentine to treat the Minor Children on a continuing
basis.
77. Defendant Volentine did, from time to time, counsel the
Minor Children.
78. On information and belief, Defendant Gottschalk gave
significant false and misleading information about me to
Defendant Volentine.
79. Even though I was not her patient, had never seen her as a
patient, had never spoken with her as a patient, and gave
her no authority, Defendant Volentine took it upon herself
to diagnose me “in absentia”. She then contacted Defendant
Woods, informing her in a letter that Defendant Volentine
believed I may have a “high-functioning form of Asberger’s
Disorder”, and inappropriately suggested that I be
evaluated for such a condition.
80. Defendant Woods received this information, and on March 17,
2008, composed and published a letter to Defendant Lassiter
in which she made false, scandalous and defamatory
statements concerning me, including that I was possibly
“laboring under some disability” and “the possibility that
Dean might actually have a high-functioning form of
Asberger’s Disorder, which has gone undiagnosed until now.”
On information and belief, Defendant Lassiter then shared
this with Defendant Gottschalk.
81. Not satisfied with her actions, Defendant Volentine,
despite having no therapeutic or other professional
relationship with me and no experience with Asberger’s

16
Disorder, then took it upon herself to research for
Defendant Woods professionals who “possess the requisite
skills to conduct such an evaluation”.

Illegal Attempts to Seize Counseling Records


82. Any attorney is presumed to know the law. Georgia law
provides therapist/patient privilege to confidentiality.
Defendant Lassiter is presumed to know this.
83. Despite this knowledge, prior to trial Defendants Lassiter
and Gottschalk attempted to secure my confidential
counseling records by sending a court-signed subpoena.
84. As a result, I was forced to pay my attorney to file a
formal objection and quash the subpoena.
85. Defendant Lassiter stated on several occasions that “she
would get them” despite the absolute legal privilege.

Ongoing Efforts to Harass and Intimidate


86. From the time the action was filed, until and through the
trial, Defendants Gottschalk, Ann Bost and Larry Bost
engaged in a continuous pattern of actions intended to
thwart my parenting time with my children.
87. Without limitation to specific acts, Defendants Gottschalk
and Bost continually attempted to usurp and limit my role
as parent, prevent me from communicating with my children
during extracurricular events and at other times, and to
encourage my children to believe that Defendants Bost and

17
Gottschalk are my children’s “true” family, and encouraging
my children to believe I am no longer part of their family.
88. In early 2008, Judge Kell was assigned to this case, and
this matter came on for hearing on September 29, 2009.
89. At trial I was repeatedly denied my civil rights.

Surprise In-Chambers Announcement by Defendant Woods


90. On the morning of the second day of trial Defendant Woods
met the attorneys first thing and asked them to step back
into chambers to see the Judge.
91. Thereupon she proceeded to inform Defendant Kell, out of
the presence of the parties and the Court Reporter, that
she had just received information that “triggered” her
obligation to do a mandatory report to the Department of
Family and Childrens Services (“DFCS”) under the child
abuse statute, and had done so.
92. My counsel immediately objected to this disclosure, and the
unfair prejudice to the Defendant’s case, but Defendant
Kell declined to declare a mistrial.
93. Because Defendant Woods chose to make her announcement to
Defendant Kell in chambers, rather than in court on the
record, I was denied the opportunity to be present during
this testimony.
94. I sought, but was denied, the opportunity to cross examine
Defendant Woods on facts that supported her in-chambers
claim.

18
95. I repeatedly contacted DFCS, but was unable to confirm that
any investigation or report was made to DFCS or any police
unit regarding myself.
96. Upon information and belief, Defendant Woods intended to
prejudice the Judge against me off the record where she
could escape censure, and to avoid having to introduce any
actual facts.
97. As a result of Defendant Woods’ clandestine disclosure,
Defendant Kell’s perception of me was fatally poisoned, and
I was denied a fair trial.
98. As a result of Defendant Kell’s refusal to allow me to
cross examine Defendant Woods, I was denied the opportunity
to challenge the evidence alleged against me, and denied a
fair hearing.

Denial of Expert Cross Examination,


and Threats Against Counsel
99. During the trial I qualified my expert, Dr. Monty
Weinstein, PSY.D., M.P.A., D.A.P.A., N.C.P. Dr. Weinstein
is a Clinical Fellow of the American Association for
Marriage and Family Therapy. He is also a Fellow of the
American Orthopsychiatric Association. He has qualified as
an expert in custodial issues over 2,500 times in 45 states
and 4 countries. Recipient of the Distinguished Public
Service Award in Kings County, Adjunct Professor, Nassau
Community College, New York. Holds two masters and a
doctorate. Mentor at the New York University Graduate

19
School of Public Affairs. Supervised interns at Connecticut
State University in Family Therapy. Has an earned
doctorate. On the editorial advisory board for the American
Psychotherapy Association. Published numerous book reviews
for the American Orthopsychiatric Association. Chaired the
ethics committee in a psychiatric facility. Published fifty
peer-reviewed journal articles in the area of mental
health. Clinical administrator for years at a large
children's psychiatric facility. Developed expertise on the
deliverance of mental health services by editing the
psychiatric journal reviewing book reviews, studying
clinical administration at New York University, and being a
clinical administrator at psychiatric facilities for
numerous years.
100. Dr. Weinstein testified in the Underlying Action about my
qualifications as a parent, and my relationship with my
children.
101. I then attempted to have him testify about issues with the
Siegel Report.
102. When I attempted to have Dr. Weinstein critique the facts
underlying the Siegel psychological report and its testing
methodology, Defendant Kell became enraged, and accused me
and my counsel of having illegally distributed the report
to Dr. Weinstein.
103. Defendant Kell threatened to hold my counsel in contempt
for letting my expert review the report.

20
104. Defendant Kell refused to let Dr. Weinstein testify
regarding problems identified with the fact-gathering and
procedures outlined in the Siegel report.
105. As a result of Defendant Kell’s actions, I was denied the
opportunity to challenge facts and conclusions in the
Siegel report.

Seizure of Expert Report


106. Upon cross-examination, Defendant Lassiter demanded to see
the contents of Dr. Weinstein’s bag, and then demanded that
the court do an in-camera inspection of the bag, over the
objection of my counsel.
107. Defendant Kell personally searched Dr. Weinstein’s bag from
the bench, and seized certain reports therein, including
Dr. Weinstein’s own report of an MMPI-2 that he had
administered to me.
108. Defendant Kell had no right to seize Dr. Weinstein’s
personal reports.
109. Defendant Kell’s and Defendant Lassiter’s conduct was
excessive, and cast a pall over the courtroom and my
conduct of the case.
110. The intent of these actions were to protect the court-
appointed experts from criticism, and to prevent me from
fairly litigating the competency of the Siegel Report.
111. As a result of Defendants’ actions, I was denied a fair
hearing, denied the opportunity to present significant and
material evidence, and denied due process of law.

21
Prejudicial Announcement by GAL During Trial
112. Prior to the conclusion of the trial in this case,
Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk demanded that the Court
impose supervision upon me during my parenting time and
while the parties drafted and submitted written closing
arguments.
113. Following this demand, Defendant Woods also then and there
asked for supervision.
114. Over the objection of my counsel, and without allowing
cross-examination of Defendant Woods, Defendant Kell
granted supervision, for one visit during one week.
115. This “one week” grew to three months of supervised visits,
without any response, advice, or relief from Defendant
Kell.
116. The intent of this supervision requirement was to drive a
wedge between me and my children, to alienate them from
their father, and to deny me an active and meaningful role
in their lives.
117. As a result of this requirement, I was denied substantial
time with my children, and forced to pay a heavy burden in
supervision fees for the time I did have.

Refusal to Approve Supervisor


118. Once the supervision requirement was implemented, Defendant
Woods then refused to approve reasonable supervisors other
than her favorites.

22
119. I attempted to get approval for the use of Phyllis McNeal,
a supervisor who has had hundreds of hours of prior
supervising experience, and had never been refused as a
qualified supervisor.
120. Despite this, Defendant Woods refused Ms. McNeal initially
on the basis that she did not have proof of passing a GCIC
(criminal background) screen, and she could not confirm her
malpractice insurance.
121. On November 5, 2008, I again submitted Ms. McNeal, after
receiving confirmation from Wagner Consulting that Ms.
McNeal had a clean GCIC report and confirmed her
malpractice insurance. A letter from Wagner was included
with the submission to Defendant Woods.
122. Despite receiving all of this information, Defendant Woods
still denied Ms. McNeal, this time adding a new requirement
that the supervisor have “clinical skills.” Defendant
Woods recommended two other supervising services, with
which she has “been familiar for at least fifteen years.”
Defendant Woods presented a “take it or leave it”
proposition, that if this is “not acceptable” that I must
“schedule a hearing before Judge Kell” so that he can make
the determination as to who will supervise.
123. The new “clinical skill” requirement was arbitrary and
capricious.
124. It not only ruled out Ms. McNeal, but the current
supervisor as well, who had been writing reports reflecting
positively on my parenting skills.

23
125. As a result of being denied approval for Ms. McNeal, I was
forced to use one of Defendant Woods’ hand picked
favorites, or miss time with my children.
126. As a result of Defendants’ behavior I was denied
substantial parenting time with my children, and forced to
incur burdensome supervision expenses.

Refusal To Sanction Defendant Volentine


127. Following Defendant Volentine’s unethical attempts to
diagnose me, her discussions of her impressions of my
condition with Defendant Woods and Defendant Fuller, and
her refusal to grant me access to my children’s health
records in her possession, I filed a complaint with
Defendant Board of Psychologists outlining Defendant
Volentine’s unprofessional and inappropriate behavior.
128. Defendant Board of Psychologists failed to take any action
to discipline Defendant Volentine.

Refusal To Sanction Defendant Fuller


129. Following Defendant Fuller’s failure to advise me of the
lack of privilege, his ineffective and incomplete attempts
to diagnose me, and his discussions of impressions of my
condition with Defendant Volentine, I filed a complaint
with Defendant Composite Board of Professional Counselors,
Social Workers and Marriage and Family Therapists,
outlining Defendant Fuller’s unprofessional and
inappropriate behavior.

24
130. Defendant Composite Board of Professional Counselors,
Social Workers and Marriage and Family Therapists failed to
take any action to discipline Defendant Fuller.

Refusal to Recuse Guardian


131. As the result of Defendant Woods’s attempts to prejudice
the court with factually unproven claims before and during
trial, I filed a motion to recuse her.
132. The filing of this motion upset both Defendant Woods and
Defendant Kell.
133. Defendant Kell denied my motion for recusal in an order
that made no mention whatsoever of Defendant Woods’
attempts to influence the Court by her in-chambers
announcement during the start of trial.

Denial Of Emergency Access To The Court


134. Following Defendant Woods’ refusal to allow me another
supervisor acceptable to me, I then applied to the Cobb
County Superior Court for Emergency relief in order to be
able to see my children over Thanksgiving holiday 2008.
135. Initially, my attorney was told that an emergency hearing
would be granted before a Senior Judge.
136. However, when it came on for hearing, Judge Brantley
advised that he had made no decision to hear the matter.
137. He then, without entertaining my motion, asked for
Defendant Woods’ input into the case.

25
138. Defendant Woods was allowed to state on the record her view
of the case before I was allowed to present my motion.
139. Defendant Woods was further permitted to state that she had
not yet been paid her fees granted in the case.
140. I was not permitted to testify as to whether I was
willfully failing to pay the fees.
141. Instead, Judge Brantley simply ruled that I was guilty of
“unclean hands” and he would not hear my motion.
142. As a result, I was not permitted to see my children over
the Thanksgiving holiday.
143. Months later in late January, 2009, the Minor Children’s
paternal grandmother fell terminally ill and became
bedridden due to late stage 4 cancer. She requested to see
all of her grandchildren for one last time.
144. I appealed to Defendants Gottschalk, Lassiter and Woods for
permission for the children to see her, to no avail.
145. I was forced to seek emergency relief on behalf of the
Minor Children through the court, enclosing documentation
from the physician attesting to the seriousness of the
condition.
146. Defendant Kell declined to hear the motion and sent it to
senior Superior Court Judge Watson White, who arbitrarily
determined on January 28, 2009 that the grandmother’s
condition was not of a nature to warrant an emergency
hearing.
147. Mere days later, the grandmother passed away without seeing
her grandchildren.

26
148. I then sought permission for my children to attend the
funeral and memorial service, but again, Defendants
Gottschalk and Lassiter refused.

Ruling
149. The hearing in the Underlying Action was conducted over
several days in early October. In mid-December the Court
issued a ruling, which forced me to attend therapeutic
counseling with a psychologist hand-picked by Defendant
Woods.
150. The Court’s order further allowed Defendant Woods to talk
freely about me to the psychologist, totally invading and
denying me patient/therapist privilege.
151. The Court’s order further imposed supervision upon me at my
own expense until such time as Defendant Woods was
satisfied with my progress, and imposed other restrictions
on my association with my children.
152. The Court’s order abdicates and delegates its authority to
the Guardian Ad Litem, Defendant Woods.

Bad Faith and Harassment


153. Defendants’ actions outlined above are part of an
intentional and ongoing pattern of harassment of myself and
my children.
154. Defendants brought and maintain the Underlying Action
against me in bad faith.

27
155. Defendants brought and maintain the Underlying Action in a
spiteful attempt to “get me” unrelated to any legitimate
state interest.
156. Defendants continue to deny me time with my children in
retaliation for my legitimate exercise of my first
amendment rights to freedom of expression.
157. Defendants continue to deny me time with my children in
retaliation for my lawful exercise of my right to contest
the findings of the GAL, and to challenge the findings of
the court-appointed custody evaluator.
158. The actions of Defendants described herein are unlawful and
malicious.

28
THE FOLLOWING COUNTS SHALL APPLY TO THE NAMED DEFENDANTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE TABLE OF CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS ATTACHED
HERETO. REFERENCES TO DEFENDANTS IN THE INDIVIDUAL COUNTS BELOW
SHALL MEAN IN EACH COUNT THE NAMED DEFENDANTS IDENTIFIED IN THE
TABLE OF CLAIMS.

COUNT ONE: VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983


(PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS)
159. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 158 above with the same force and
effect as if herein set forth.
160. At all relevant times herein, I had a right under the due
process clauses of the state and federal constitutions not
to be deprived of my life, liberty, or property. U.S.C.
Const. Amend. 14.
161. At all times relevant herein, the defendants were state
actors and their conduct was subject to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,
1985, and 1988.2
162. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized
that a parent enjoys a fundamental right to the care,
custody and control of his children. See Troxel v.
Granville, 527 U.S. 1069 (1999); Lassiter v. Department of
Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981); May v. Anderson, 345
U.S. 528 (1952).

2
"Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged
action, are acting `under color' of law for purposes of Section 1983
actions." Dennis v. Sparks. 449 U.S. 24, 27-28 (1980).

29
163. Defendants acted to deprive me of my fundamental right to
the care, custody, and control of my children without due
process of law.
164. Defendants have conspired to injure me, have injured me,
and continue to injure, me by acting, aiding, and abetting
in the conduct of an unfair proceeding in Superior Court,
Cobb County, Georgia, and attempting to modify the
visitation granted to me in my divorce decree under a “best
interest of the child” standard adopted by the Georgia
Legislature in O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3.
165. Defendants have injured and continue to injure me by the
filing of a complaint, and numerous subsequent motions, in
Cobb County Superior Court, seeking to limit my time with
my children, and to interfere with my established parenting
time with my Minor Children.
166. Defendants have continued their campaign for over four
years.
167. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk have denied me due
process of law and a fair trial by making false, unlawful,
inflammatory, embellished, and ex-parté allegations of fact
to the court, and by using the court subpoena process
illegally to obtain my mental health records.
168. Defendants Maneley and The Maneley Firm denied me the right
to a fair trial and due process of law by intentionally
submitting and obtaining a written order from the Cobb
Superior Court that failed to follow the oral order of the
Court.

30
169. Defendants Gottschalk, Lassiter, and Kell denied me a fair
trial, and continue to deny me a fair trial, are denying me
the chance to have my trial expert present material
testimony regarding the basis underlying the report of the
custody evaluator.
170. Defendants Woods and Huff, Woods and Hamby acted to deprive
me of a fair trial by intentionally making inflammatory
statements to the judge in chambers, off the record, and
outside of the presence of the parties.
171. Defendants Woods and Huff, Woods and Hamby denied me, and
are denying me, due process of law by requiring that I
consent to the disclosure of my private mental health
records to her in violation of my right to privacy.
172. Defendants Woods and Huff, Woods and Hamby denied me, and
is denying me, a fair trial by reporting in chambers to
Defendant Kell that she had to make a “mandatory” report to
DFCS, which reporting has not been verified with the state
agency to date, and which statements poisoned the mind of
the court going into the trial.
173. Defendants Woods and Huff, Woods and Hamby acted to deny me
a fair trial by denying me a reasonable supervisor of my
choice who could have written a fair and unbiased report
for the Court, instead requiring that I use a friend of
Defendant Woods.
174. Defendants Woods, Lassiter, Gottschalk, and Kell acted to
deny me due process of law by requiring that a full

31
custodial evaluation be conducted even though the
Underlying Action sought modification of visitation only.
175. Defendants Fuller and Psychological Associates denied me
due process of law and a fair trial by disclosing my
private mental health records to Defendant Woods without my
consent in violation of my right to privacy and patient-
therapist privilege.
176. Defendants Fuller and Psychological Associates denied me
due process of law and a fair trial by conducting a sham
evaluation in which he failed to administer any recognized
testing procedures, which results were disclosed to
Defendant Woods and used in trial in the Underlying Action.
177. Defendant Siegel denied me due process of law and a fair
trial by falsely diagnosing me with a condition despite
having found no clinical pathology, and testifying to that
finding into the Underlying Action.
178. Defendants Woods and Huff, Woods and Hamby, and Defendants
Volentine and Psychological Associates denied me due
process of law and a fair trial by conducting secret
evaluations of the children, manipulating the results of
the evaluations, and then offering the results of such
secret evaluations as evidence.
179. Defendant Volentine and Psychological Associates denied me
due process and a fair trial by unlawfully suggesting to
Defendant Woods that I suffered from a mental condition,
thereby poisoning the mind of the Guardian, a material
witness in the case.

32
180. Defendants acted to deprive me of a fair trial by
conducting a “sham” trial whose outcome was predetermined
by the recommendation of Defendant Woods.
181. Defendants acted willfully and maliciously intending to
prejudice and bias the trial court against me.
182. Defendants Lassiter and Kell acted to willfully and
unlawfully seize and retain my expert’s private materials
without authority.
183. Defendants Kell and Lassiter acted to deny me a fair trial
by overtly intimidating my counsel, by charging and holding
him in contempt for attempting to discredit the custodial
evaluator’s report.
184. Defendants Kell and Lassiter acted to deny me a fair trial
by harassing my expert at trial in the Underlying Action.
185. Defendants Kell and Lassiter denied me, and continue to
deny me, a fair trial by issuing an order restricting my
access to, and use of, the report of the custody evaluator
assigned to my case.
186. Defendants Kell and Lassiter denied me, and continue to
deny me, a fair trial by holding my counsel in contempt of
an order that unreasonably restricted my right to prepare
my case and challenge the witnesses against me.
187. Defendants Woods, Huff, Woods and Hamby and Kell denied me,
and continue to deny me, my civil rights and due process of
law by imposing interim custodial supervision despite a
lack of evidentiary hearing taken on the basis for Woods’
sudden supervision recommendation.

33
188. Defendants Cobb County, Cobb County Board of Commissioners,
and Sonny Purdue denied me due process of law by
implementing a policy and operating a system of family law
jurisprudence in Cobb County in a manner that denied me
meaningful consideration of my evidence and expert
testimony, and merely “rubber stamped” the flawed
recommendations of Defendant Woods.
189. Defendants’ actions were the proximate cause of my failure
to receive a fair trial.
190. Defendants’ actions were the proximate cause of my failure
to receive due process of law.
191. Defendants’ actions were the proximate cause of my failure
to enjoy my fundamental right to the care, custody, and
control of my children.
192. Defendants’ actions denied me a fair trial, my right to due
process of the law.
193. Acting under color of law, all Defendants worked a denial
of my rights, privileges and immunities secured by the
United States Constitution or by Federal Law and guaranteed
by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States, to wit, they sought and
got court orders based on their actions.
194. As a result of Defendants' concerted unlawful and malicious
conduct, I was deprived of my rights to due process of law,
of my right to the care, custody and control of my
children, and the due course of justice was impeded, in

34
violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.
195. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which
would not otherwise have been incurred, and have suffered
the loss of the association and love and respect of my
Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betrayal by
the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all
compensable as emotional distress, and other damages.
196. Defendants’ actions are ongoing, and they continue to
resort to the court process to deny me due process of law.

COUNT TWO
VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION
197. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the allegations
in paragraphs 1 through 158 above with the same force and
effect as if herein set forth, except paragraphs 127-130.
198. Defendants Gottschalk and Lassiter have applied to and used
the legal judicial process to deprive me of my
constitutional right to equal protection of the law, and
enlisted the cooperation and assistance of the other
Defendants herein.
199. Defendants Kell and Sonny Purdue have implemented and
enforced laws of the state of Georgia in a fashion that
deprives me of my constitutional right to equal protection
of the law.
200. Defendants Gottschalk and Lassiter, in cooperation with
Defendants Kell and Woods, have singled me out for harsh

35
treatment and restriction of my rights to parenting time
because of my status as a heterosexual male, to wit, by
seeking orders in a court of record in the state of Georgia
seeking to limit my parenting time.
201. Defendants Gottschalk, Lassiter, Woods, Kell and Sonny
Purdue have engaged in activity that denies me equal
protection of the law due to my status as a heterosexual
male, to wit, by implementing and enforcing the law of
Georgia in a manner that denies me time with my children,
but allows Defendant Gottschalk time with the children,
based upon hearsay, ex-parté testimony, and other unfair
trial tactics.
202. Singling me out for harsh treatment and denial of my
parenting rights on the basis my sex and sexual orientation
violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
203. As a result of this harsh and discriminatory treatment, I
have been harmed by being denied my fundamental right to
the care of, and association with, my Minor Children.
204. The actions of Defendants are ongoing and they are
continuing to actively seek to, and do currently, limit and
restrict my right to the care of and association with my
Minor Children.
205. Acting under color of law, Defendants worked a denial of my
rights, privileges and immunities secured by the United
States Constitution or by Federal Law and guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United

36
States, to wit, they sought and got court orders based on
their actions.
206. The actions of Defendants are the proximate cause of my
injuries.
207. As a result of Defendants' concerted unlawful and malicious
conduct, I was both deprived of my rights to equal
protection of all the laws, of my right to the care,
custody and control of my children, and the due course of
justice was impeded, in violation of the Fourth, and
Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United
States and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.
208. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which
would not otherwise have been incurred, and have suffered
the loss of the association and love and respect of my
Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betrayal by
the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all
compensable as emotional distress, and other damages.

COUNT THREE
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
209. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the allegations
in paragraphs 1 through 158 above with the same force and
effect as if herein set forth, except paragraphs 127-130.

37
210. At all times relevant herein, the defendants were state
actors and their conduct was subject to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,
1985, and 1988.3
211. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized
that a parent enjoys a fundamental right to the care,
custody and control of his children. See Troxel v.
Granville, 527 U.S. 1069 (1999); Lassiter v. Department of
Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981); May v. Anderson, 345
U.S. 528 (1952).
212. Defendants acted to deprive me of my fundamental right to
the care, custody, and control of my children.
213. Defendant Sonny Purdue acted to violate and limit my
fundamental right to the care, custody and control of my
children by signing and implementing O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3,
permitting judges to modify and restrict visitation without
the necessity of showing any material change in conditions,
or any lack of fitness of the parents.
214. All Defendants, with the exception of Defendant Board of
Psychologists and Defendant Composite Board of Professional
Counselors, Social Workers and Marriage and Family
Therapists, acted to violate and limit my fundamental right
to the care, custody and control of my children by
operating individually and collectively the Cobb County
“Shadow Justice System”.

3
"Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged
action, are acting `under color' of law for purposes of Section 1983
actions." Dennis v. Sparks. 449 U.S. 24, 27-28 (1980).

38
215. All Defendants, with the exception of Defendant Board of
Psychologists and Defendant Composite Board of Professional
Counselors, Social Workers and Marriage and Family
Therapists, acted in concert to deprive me of my
fundamental right to the care, custody and control of my
Minor Children by initiating, maintaining, and
participating in an action in the Superior Court of Cobb
County under the afore-mentioned statute.
216. All Defendants, with the exception of Defendant Board of
Psychologists and Defendant Composite Board of Professional
Counselors, Social Workers and Marriage and Family
Therapists, acted to limit my fundamental right to the
care, custody and control of my children by seeking and/or
participating in the effort to obtain and issue an order,
under a mere “best interest of the children” standard
(O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3), that my visitation should be
supervised and substantially curtailed, and further
imposing mandatory counseling requiring that I surrender my
right to patient/therapist privilege.
217. The actions of Defendants are ongoing and they are
continuing to actively seek to, and do currently, limit and
restrict my right to the care of and association with my
Minor Children.
218. Acting under color of law, all Defendants worked a denial
of my rights, privileges and immunities secured by the
United States Constitution or by Federal Law and guaranteed
by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution

39
of the United States, to wit, they sought and got court
orders based on their actions.
219. The actions of Defendants are the proximate cause of my
injuries.
220. As a result of Defendants' concerted unlawful and malicious
conduct, I was deprived of my fundamental right to the
care, custody and control of my children, and the due
course of justice was impeded, in violation of the Fourth,
and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United
States and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.
221. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which
would not otherwise have been incurred, and have suffered
the loss of the association and love and respect of my
Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betrayal by
the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all
compensable as emotional distress, and other damages.

COUNT FOUR
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (conspiracy)

222. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the allegations


in paragraphs 1 through 158 above with the same force and
effect as if herein set forth.
223. All Defendants have conspired and acted in concert to deny
my civil rights.
224. The conspiratorial purpose was to deny me (i) my
fundamental right to the care, custody and control of my

40
children, (ii) my right to due process and a fair trial,
(iii) my right to equal protection of the law, and (iv) my
right to freedom of expression.
225. The conspiracy, as it developed, also emerged to protect
the participants in the unofficial “Shadow Justice System”
that operates in Cobb County family courts.
226. The first step in the conspiracy was taken by Defendant
Gottschalk when she retained Defendant Maneley to represent
her, and they together then filed a complaint in Cobb
County Superior Court making outlandish and derogatory
claims against me.
227. All individual Defendants, other than those acting in their
official capacity for the State of Georgia, insinuated
themselves into the conspiracy and transformed the private
actors into State actors.
228. This action took the form of involvement in some or all of
the litigation seeking to limit and deny my visitation with
my children, as well as the evaluations and reports that
were material evidence in the case.
229. The Defendants intentionally interfered with my exercise
and enjoyment of my clear and established rights secured by
the state and federal constitutions or laws of the United
States and/or the State of Georgia, and thereby deprived me
of those rights and caused me injuries.
230. As a result of the concerted unlawful and malicious
conspiracy of all the Defendants, I was deprived of my
rights to both due process and the equal protection of the

41
laws, the due course of justice was impeded, and my
fundamental rights to the care, custody and control of my
children was taken, in violation of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United
States and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.
231. The conspiratorial acts of Defendants were the legal and
proximate cause of my injuries.
232. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which
would not otherwise have been incurred, and have suffered
the loss of the association and love and respect of my
Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betrayal by
the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all
compensable as emotional distress, and other damages.

COUNT FIVE
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
233. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by
reference all of the allegations in paragraphs 1 through
158 above with the same force and effect as if herein set
forth, with the exception of paragraphs 127 through 130.
234. Defendants Lassiter, Gottschalk, Woods and Kell imposed
cruel and unusual punishment upon me for exercising my
legal rights to challenge the recommendation of Defendant
Woods, and the Cobb County family law “shadow justice”
system.

42
235. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk demanded that
supervision be imposed upon my visitation with my children,
without any finding of fitness or danger to my children.
236. Defendant Woods recommended supervised visitation be
imposed upon me.
237. Defendant Kell imposed supervised visits upon me in his
final order as punishment for my actions named above and an
effort to prevent further exercise of my legitimate right
to petition the court for redress of grievances.
238. That all Defendants were aware of and approved of Defendant
Kell’s imposition of supervised visitation.
239. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which
would not otherwise have been incurred, and have suffered
the loss of the association and love and respect of my
Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betrayal by
the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all
compensable as emotional distress, and other damages.

COUNT SIX
42 U.S.C. § 1983:
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND TRAINING4
240. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations made in
paragraphs 1 through 158 above regarding actions and
inactions by Defendant Kell, Defendant Volentine, Defendant
Siegel, and Defendant Fuller, and also includes all

4
See City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989).

43
allegations in paragraphs 127 through 130, with the same
force and effect as if herein set forth.
241. Defendant Ingram is responsible for Defendant Kell’s
performance on the bench.
242. Defendant Ingram is responsible for Defendant Kell’s
continuing education and training in the application of
constitutional law.
243. Defendant Ingram failed to adequately supervise and train
Defendant Kell.
244. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Ingram’s
failure, I was damaged by Defendant Kell’s imposition of
supervision on my visits with my children.
245. Defendant Board of Psychologists is responsible for the
requirements of practice, continuing education, control and
discipline of Defendants Siegel and Volentine. Defendant
Board of Psychologists failed to adequately supervise,
control, train and discipline Defendants Volentine and
Siegel, allowing Defendant Volentine to conduct secret
evaluations of the Minor Children, to engage in unlawful
and unsolicited recommendations for therapy of Plaintiff, a
non-patient. Defendant Board of Psychologists allowed
Defendant Siegel to prepare a flawed custodial report in a
visitation case, and failed to provide adequate guidance
and control over the preparation of custodial reports.
246. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Board of
Psychologists’ failure, I was damaged by Defendant Siegel’s
flawed and unscientific report being presented to Defendant

44
Kell in trial, resulting in imposition of supervision on my
visits with my children.
247. Defendant Composite Board of Professional Counselors,
Social Workers and Marriage and Family Therapists is
responsible for the requirements of practice, continuing
education, control and discipline of Defendant Fuller.
Defendant Composite Board of Professional Counselors,
Social Workers and Marriage and Family Therapists failed to
adequately supervise, control, train and discipline
Defendant Fuller, allowing Defendant Fuller to make
unscientific diagnoses not supported by any recognized
tests, and to disclose my confidential and privileged
patient-therapist communications to Defendant Woods.
248. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Composite
Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers and
Marriage and Family Therapists’ failure, I was damaged by
Defendant Fuller’s flawed and unscientific report and
diagnoses being presented to Defendant Woods, resulting in
imposition of supervision on my visits with my children.
249. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which
would not otherwise have been incurred, and have suffered
the loss of the association and love and respect of my
Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betrayal by
the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all
compensable as emotional distress, and other damages.

45
COUNT SEVEN
18 U.S.C. § 1513: RETALIATION FOR EXERCISE OF CIVIL RIGHTS
250. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations
in paragraphs 1-158, above with the same force and effect
as if herein set forth, with the exception of paragraphs
127-130.
251. Defendant Kell retaliated against me for seeking to have my
expert witness opine upon the report issued by Defendant
Siegel by charging my attorney with contempt, by searching
my expert’s bag and unlawfully seizing his proprietary
report, and by casting a chill over the courtroom with his
extreme and excessive behavior.
252. Defendant Kell further retaliated against me for filing my
motion to recuse Defendant Woods, by issuing a final order
that imposed supervised visits, compelled me to undergo
psychological treatment, denied me my right to
patient/therapist privilege, and denied me my fundamental
right to the care, custody and control of my Minor
Children.
253. Defendant Kell and Defendant Cobb County and Defendant Cobb
County Board retaliated against me for contesting and
failing to “go along with” the operation of the Cobb County
Shadow Justice System by issuing a final order that imposed
supervised visits, compelled me to undergo psychological
treatment, denied me my right to patient/therapist
privilege, and denied me my fundamental right to the care,
custody and control of my Minor Children.

46
254. As a direct result of these retaliations, I was harmed,
have incurred considerable legal debt which would not
otherwise have been incurred, and have suffered the loss of
the association and love and respect of my Minor Children;
confidence in and feelings of betrayal by the justice
system, shock, and emotional scarring, all compensable as
emotional distress, and other damages.

COUNT EIGHT
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
255. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations
in paragraphs 1 through 158 above with the same force and
effect as if herein set forth, with the exception of
paragraphs 127-130.
256. All Defendants, with the exception of Defendant Board of
Psychologists and Defendant Composite Board of Professional
Counselors, Social Workers and Marriage and Family
Therapists and Defendant Ingram, intentionally and
recklessly inflicted emotional distress on me by denying me
my constitutional rights to due process, equal protection
of the law, and the care, custody and control of my
children, by forcing me to defend costly litigation for
over four years, by conspiring with other Defendants to
deny my civil rights, and by retaliating against me for the
lawful exercise of my right to cross examination and
presentation of witnesses, and knew or should have known

47
that emotional distress was the likely result of their
conduct.
257. Defendants’ conduct was directed at me.
258. Defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous, beyond all
possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a
civilized community.
259. The actions of the Defendants were the cause of my
distress.
260. The emotional distress I sustained was severe.
261. As a result of the Defendants' extreme and outrageous
conduct, I was, am, and, with a high degree of likelihood,
will continue to be emotionally distressed.
262. Defendant Board of Commissioners, Defendant Sonny Purdue,
Defendant The Maneley Firm, and Defendant Huff, Woods and
Hamby are liable for their agents and employees under the
doctrine of respondeat superior.
263. As a result of the Defendants' extreme and outrageous
conduct, I have suffered and will continue to suffer mental
pain and anguish, severe emotional trauma, embarrassment,
and humiliation.

COUNT NINE
NEGLIGENT DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL MEDICAL INFORMATION
264. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations
in paragraphs 10-11, 21 through 23, 53-58, 76 through 85,
above with the same force and effect as if herein set
forth.

48
265. Defendants Volentine and Fuller, as licensed professionals
in the state of Georgia, have a statutory and professional
duty to handle Plaintiff’s medical information in
confidence.
266. Defendant Volentine breached that duty by disclosing her
diagnosis that I had “Asberger’s Disorder”, a mental health
condition, to Defendant Woods and Defendant Fuller.
267. Defendant Fuller breached that duty by disclosing
information regarding me to Defendant Volentine.
268. Defendant Woods, as an attorney and officer of the Court,
has a duty to comply with Georgia law concerning the
confidentiality of medical records.
269. Defendant Woods breached that duty by disclosing to
Defendant Lassiter the unauthorized diagnosis made by
Defendant Volentine that I had “Asberger’s Disorder”, a
mental health condition, and information about my mental
health provided by Defendant Fuller.
270. Defendant Volentine had no authorization or waiver allowing
her to release such confidential medical information about
me.
271. Defendant Woods had no authorization or waiver allowing her
to release confidential medical information about Plaintiff
that she received from Defendant Volentine.
272. Defendant Fuller had no authorization or waiver allowing
him to disclose my confidential mental health information
to Defendant Volentine.

49
273. As a result of Defendants’ release of this information, I
suffered harm including humiliation, degradation, public
embarrassment, and the loss of time with my children.
274. Defendants’ unauthorized disclosure was the legal and
proximate cause of my harm, for which I am entitled to
damages.

COUNT TEN
SLANDER
275. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations
in paragraphs 10-11, 21 through 23, 53-58, 76 through 85,
above with the same force and effect as if herein set
forth.
276. Defendants Volentine, Fuller, and Woods spoke false words
to others that I was suffering from a medical condition
known as Asberger’s Disorder.
277. I have been damaged as a result of the false words spoken
by Defendants Volentine, Fuller, and Woods, including
public humiliation, embarrassment, the persecution of a
lawsuit filed by Defendant Gottschalk and prosecuted by
Defendant Lassiter, seeking to remove me from my children,
and the loss of substantial parenting time and association
with my children, for which I have suffered intense mental
anguish and despair.

COUNT ELEVEN
LIBEL

50
278. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations
in paragraphs 10-11, 21 through 23, 53-58, 76 through 85,
above with the same force and effect as if herein set
forth.
279. Plaintiff was and is a person of good name, credit and
reputation and enjoyed the esteem and good opinion of his
neighbors and others who know him.
280. Defendants Volentine, Fuller, and Woods knew of the good
name, credit and reputation of Plaintiff.
281. On March 17, 2008, Defendant Woods composed and published a
letter to Defendant Lassiter in which she made false,
scandalous and defamatory statements concerning me,
including “the possibility that Dean might actually have a
high-functioning form of Asberger’s Disorder, which has
gone undiagnosed until now.”
282. As a result of this disclosure to Defendant Lassiter,
Plaintiff has been injured in his good name, credit and
reputation, and brought into public scandal and disgrace,
has been shunned by persons with whom he previously had
social or business relations, has suffered mental anguish
and has been injured in his income by having lost
customers.
283. Plaintiff has served a notice on Defendant Woods specifying
the false and defamatory statements and asking her to
retract the statements.

51
COUNT TWELVE
INVASION OF PRIVACY
284. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations
in paragraphs 10-11, 21 through 23, 53-58, 76 through 85,
above with the same force and effect as if herein set
forth.
285. That the publication of Defendant Volentine’s opinion that
I suffered from a particular syndrome is a trespass upon my
right to privacy.
286. That I have suffered damages from such trespass, including
public humiliation, embarrassment, the persecution of a
lawsuit filed by Defendant Gottschalk and prosecuted by
Defendant Lassiter, seeking to remove me from my children,
and the loss of substantial parenting time and association
with my children, for which I have suffered intense mental
anguish and despair.

COUNT THIRTEEN
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
287. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations
in paragraphs 1 through 196, above with the same force and
effect as if herein set forth.
288. Since the right was first established in Marbury v.
Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), federal courts have had the
power to declare unconstitutional laws repugnant to the
rights conferred under the United States Constitution and
subsequent Amendments.

52
289. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized
that a parent enjoys a fundamental right to the care,
custody and control of his children. See Troxel v.
Granville, 527 U.S. 1069 (1999); Lassiter v. Department of
Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981); May v. Anderson, 345
U.S. 528 (1952).

290. O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3(b) provides that “[i]n any case in which


a judgment awarding the custody of a child has been
entered, on the motion of any party or on the motion of the
judge, that portion of the judgment effecting visitation
rights between the parties and their child or parenting
time may be subject to review and modification or
alteration without the necessity of any showing of a change
in any material conditions and circumstances of either
party or the child.”
291. O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3(b) allows a judge unfettered power in
that it contains no limitation on the change in visitation
that may be accorded, and in this case, allows the court to
impose limited supervised visitation on me requiring that I
abandon my rights to medical privacy, delegates decision-
making over my parental rights to a mere Guardian Ad Litem
instead of the Court, and deprives me of all meaningful
relationship with my children.
292. O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3(b), as written and implemented in the
Underlying Action impermissibly burdens my right as parent
to the care, custody, and control of my children, because

53
it allows the judge to deprive me of any or all parenting
time under the guise of a change of visitation, while
requiring no showing of a material change in circumstances
affecting the welfare of the children.
293. The interest of the state of Georgia is insufficient to
sustain the heavy burden imposed on my fundamental rights
by O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3(b).
294. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment declaring O.C.G.A. §
19-9-3(b) unconstitutional.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF


WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands:
295. A declaratory judgment that each and every §1983 cause of
action numbered 1 through and including 7 lies as a
violation of my civil rights.
296. A declaratory judgment that each and every common law claim
lies.
297. A declaratory judgment that O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3(b) permitting
reduction of visitation and imposition of supervision
“without the necessity of any showing of a change in any
material conditions and circumstances of either party or
the child” violates my fundamental right to the care,
custody, and control of my children under the Constitution
of the United States and is therefore unconstitutional as
written.
298. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining
Defendants, jointly and severally, from continuing to

54
violate my civil rights under the United States
Constitution; and
299. Judgment, where available, and against all Defendants not
protected by sovereign immunity, jointly and severally for
all actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the
amount of $5,000,000 and
300. Judgment, where available, and against all Defendants not
protected by sovereign immunity, jointly and severally, for
punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury,
301. Costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such
other relief deemed to be just, fair, and appropriate.

This 19th day of June, 2009.

Respectfully submitted,

Dean Mark Gottschalk

55
TABLE OF CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

DEFENDANT
COUNTS
Karen Ann Gottschalk
I,II,III,IV,V,VIII
Barbara Lassiter
I, II, III, IV, V, VIII
Hon. C. LaTain Kell
I, II, III, IV, V, VII
Hon. S. Lark Ingram
IV, VI
DIANNE WOODS
I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII,
IX, X, XI, XII
HUFF, WOODS & HAMBY
I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII
MICHAEL MANELEY
I, II, III, IV, V, VIII
The Maneley Firm
I, II, III, IV, V, VIII
Cobb County, GA
I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII
Cobb County Board of
I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII
Commissioners
Sonny Purdue
I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII
Thurbert Baker
I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII
GA Board of Psychologists
IV, VI
GA Composite Board of
IV, VI
Professional Counselors
Sheri M. Siegel
I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII
Emmett Fuller
I, II, III, IV, V, VIII, IX, X,
XII
Susan Z. Volentine
I, II, III, IV, V, VIII, IX, X,
XII
Psychological Affiliates,
I, II, III, IV, V, VIII
Inc.
Ann Bost
I, II, III, IV, V, VIII
Larry Bost
I, II, III, IV, V, VIII

56

You might also like