SHELLEY J. GAYLORD CIRCUIT COURT, BR. 6 STATE OF WISCONSIN, =: ciRcurr courT!RCUIT COURT pane county BRANCH _aasnec 10 AH 3:53 JOHN A. SCOCOS 5897 Schumann Drive Fitchburg, WI 53711, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 30 W. Mifilin Street P.O. Box 7843 Madison, WI 53707-7843, MARVIN J. FREEDMAN, Board Chair In his official capacity, c/o Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs 30 W. Mifflin Street P.O. Box 7843 Madison, WI 53707-7843, MARCIA M. ANDERSON, Board Vice Chait In her official capacity, c/o Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs 30 W. Mifflin Street P.O. Box 7843 Madison, WI 53707-7843, DAVID F, BOETCHER, Board Member In his official capacity, c/o Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs 30 W. Mifilin Street P.O. Box 7843 Madison, WI 53707-7843, JACQUELINE A. GUTHRIE, Board Member In her official capacity, clo Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs 30 W. Miffiin Street P.O. Box 7843 Madison, WI 53707-7843, S DANE COURTY. WT CaseNo. OSCY6213 Case Code: 30952, 30701, 30704 (Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Declaratory Judgment, Other Injunetion or Restraining Order)RODNEY C. MOEN, Board Member In his official capacity, c/o Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs 30 W. Mifflin Street P.O, Box 7843 Madison, WI 53707-7843, PETER J. MORAN, Board Member In his official capacity, c/o Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs 30 W. Mifflin Street P.O. Box 7843 Madison, WI 53707-7843, and DANIEL J. NAYLOR, Board Member In his official capacity, c/o Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs 30 W. Mifflin Street P.O. Box 7843 Madison, WI 53707-7843, Defendants. SUMMONS THE STATE OF WISCONSIN To each person named above as a defendant: ‘You are hereby notified that the above-named plaintiff has filed a lawsuit or other legal action against you. The complaint, which is attached, states the nature and basis of the legal action. Within 45 days of receiving this summons, you must respond with a written answer, as that term is used in chapter 802 of the Wisconsin Statutes, to the complaint. The court may reject or disregard an answer that does not follow the requirements of the statutes. The answer ‘must be sent or delivered to the Court (whose address is Dane County Courthouse, 215 $ Hamilton St., Madison, WI 53703) and to James R. Troupis of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, the -2-plaintiff's attomeys (whose address is One South Pinckney Street, Suite 700, P.O. Box 1806, Madison, Wisconsin, 53701-1806). You may have an attorney help or represent you. If you do not provide a proper answer within 45 days, the court may grant judgment against you for the award of money or other legal action requested in the complaint, and you may lose your right to object to anything that is or may be incorrect in the complaint. A judgment may be enforced as provided by law. A judgment awarding money may become a lien against any real estate you own now or in the future, and may also be enforced by garnishment or seizure of property. Dated this 10th day of December, 2009. SBN 1005341 enck, SBN 1066208 One South Pinckney Street, Suite 700 P.O. Box 1806 Madison, WI 53701-1806 Telephone: (608) 257-3501 Fax: (608) 283-2275 Attorneys for Plaintiff John A. Seocos ‘QaFIRANeoDONUNESENHNNISa4.1STATE OF WISCONSIN ercurr cour CIRCUIT COURT ae county BRANCH __opos gee 10 AN $53 0 - DANE COURTY. Wt JOHN A. SCOCOS 5897 Schumann Drive Case No, 08276213 Fitchburg, WI 53711, Plaintiff, STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 30 W. Mifflin Street P.O. Box 7843 Madison, WI 53707-7843, MARVIN J. FREEDMAN, Board Chair In his official capacity, clo Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs 30 W. MifFin Street P.O. Box 7843 Madison, WI 53707-7843, MARCIA M. ANDERSON, Board Vice Chair In her official capacity, c/o Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs 30 W. Mifilin Street P.O. Box 7843 Madison, WI 53707-7843, DAVID F. BOETCHER, Board Member In his official capacity, c/o Wiscorsin Department of Veterans A {fairs 30 W. Mifilin Street P.O. Box 7843 Madison, WI 53707-7843, JACQUELINE A. GUTHRIE, Board Member In her official capacity, c/o Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs 30 W. Mifilin Street P.O. Box 7843 Madison, WI 53707-7843, Case Code: 30952, 30701, 30704 (Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Declaratory Judgment, Other Injunction or Restraining Order)RODNEY CG. MOEN, Board Member Inhis official capacity, c/o Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs 30 W. Mifflin Street P.O. Box 7843 Madison, WI 53707-7843, PETER J. MORAN, Board Member In his official capacity, c/o Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs 30 W. Mifflin Street P.O. Box 7843 Madison, WI 53707-7843, and DANIEL J. NAYLOR, Board Member In his official capacity, c/o Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs 30 W. Mifilin Street P.O. Box 7843 Madison, WI 53707-7843, Defendants. VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND OTHER RELIEF NOW COMES John A. Scocos, and for his verified Complaint against The State of Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, Marvin J. Freedman, Marcia M. Anderson, David F, Boetcher, Jacqueline A. Guthrie, Rodney C. Moen, Peter J. Moran, and Daniel J. Naylor, states as follows: 1 John A. Scocos is a resident of Fitchburg, Dane County, Wisconsin, 2. The State of Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs (“WDVA") is a Department of the State of Wisconsin created by Statue, Wis. Stat. § 15.49. 3. Marvin J, Freedman, Marcia M. Anderson, David F. Boetcher, Jacqueline A. Guthrie, Rodney C, Moen, Peter J. Moran, and Daniel J. Naylor were nominated to serve on theWDVA Board by Governor James Doyle, and each claims to serve on the WDVA Board and each is a resident of the State of Wisconsin. POLICY TO HONOR AND PROTECT VETERANS RIGHTS 4. The State of Wisconsin has both explicitly and implicitly indicated it is the policy of the State to honor and protect veterans rights, including: @) (b) (©) (d) “The legislature find that the practice of unfair discrimination in employments against properly qualified individuals by reason of their military service . .. substantially and adversely affects the general welfare of the state.” Wis. Stat. § 111.31 (1); “It is the intent of the legislature to protect by law the rights of all individuals to obtain gainful employment and to enjoy privileges free from employment discrimination because of ... military service.” Wis. Stat § 111.31 2); “(a) Any person . .. inducted or ordered into federal active duty for 90 days or mote... who . . . has left or leaves a position .. . in the employ of any political subdivision of the state... . shall be restored to that position or to a position of like seniority, status, pay, and salary advancement as though service toward seniority, status, pay, or salary advancement had not been interrupted by the absence. ...” Wis. Stat. § 321.64(1); “The person whose position was restored may not be discharged from the position without cause within one year after restoration and the discharge is subject to all federal and state laws affecting any private employment and to the provisions of contraets that may exist between employer andemployee. ...” Wis, Stat. § 321.64(2); and “The restoration of unclassified state employees shall be governed by this section.” Wis. Stat. § 321.64(2) and (6) 5. The United States of America has, as well, explicitly and implicitly indicated it is the policy of the United States to honor and protect veterans rights, including (a) “(a) A person who is a member of, applies to be a member of, performs, had performed, applies to perform, or has an obligation to perform service in a uniformed service shall not be denied initial employment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or any benefit of employment by an employer of the basis of that membership, application for membership, performance of service, application for service, or obligation.” 38 U.S.C. § 4311 (a); () __“(c) A person who is reemployed by an employer under this chapter shall not be discharged from such employment, except for cause (1) within one year after the date of such reemployment, if the person's period of service before the reemployment was more than 180 days” 38 U.S.C. § 4316 (c)(1); (©) “A person who is reemployed under this chapter is entitled to the seniority and other rights and benefits determined by seniority that the person had on the date of the commencement of service in the uniformed services.” 38 U.S.C. § 4316(a); (qd) The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (CUSERRA”) “supersedes any State law (including any local law orordinance), contract, agreement, policy, plan, practice, or other matter that reduces, limits, or eliminates in any manner any right or benefit provided by this chapter, including the establishment of additional prerequisites to the exercise of any such right or the receipt of any such benefit.” 38 USC. § 43020); and (©) Nothing in USERRA “shall supersede, nullify or diminish any Federal or State law (including any local law or ordinance), contract, agreement, policy, plan, practice, or other matter that establishes a right or benefit that is more beneficial to, or is in addition to, a right or benefit provided for such person in this chapter.” 38 U.S.C. § 4302(a). 6. Mr. Scocos has a clear, specific legal right to the protection afforded under these statutes, and the duty sought to be enforced by these statutes is positive and plain. JOHN A. SCOCOS’ HONORED SERVICE TO HIS COUNTRY AND STATE 7. Mr. Scocos began his military career in 1979 and was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in 1981 and continued in active duty until 1990. From 1990 until October 2009, he served in the Army reserves, for a total commitment to the United States Army of thirty years 8. Mr. Scocos served his country as an Army Colonel on active duty deployed to Iraq from April 2007 to October 2007 (1st Deployment) and again from September 2008 to September 2009 (2nd Deployment). 9. Mr, Scocos had previously served in other overseas military deployments during his thirty year carcer. 10, ‘The United States has honored Mr. Scocos’ commitment to the service of his country with numerous medals, awards and rank, including:@ ) © @ © Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Cluster; Meritorious Service Medal with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters; Army Commendation Medal with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters; Amy Achievement Medal with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters; and Combat Action Badge. 11, Mr. Scocos was appointed Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs by the Board of that Department in September 2003, He served in that capacity from that date forward, interrupted only by his service in the United States Army. 12. Asaresult of his service to the Veterans community, Mr. Scocos has received numerous honors and awards, including: @ (b) () @ (e) 2006 Wisconsin State Department of the American Legion Leadership Medal; 2006 Wisconsin State Council of Vietnam Veterans of America Distinguished Service Awar 2006 Disabled American Veterans Distinguished Service Award; and 2007 Military Order of the Purple Heart Department of Wisconsin Outstanding Service Award. 2008 Military Order of Purple Heart, Department of Wisconsin Distinguished and Meritorious Service Award: 2008 Secretary's Award — in recognition of leadership and dedication in service to our Nation’s Veterans ~ by Federal Department — Secretary of Veterans Affairs; and(2) 2008 Iron Mike Award by the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs. 13, Mr, Scocos’ abilities and achievements in Veterans Affairs were honored nationally by his election in 2007 as President of the National Association of State Directors of ‘Veterans Affairs. 14, Mr. Scocos’ effective administration and leadership of WDVA was explicitly noted by the Board of the Department when, prior to his 1st Deployment, it stated, The veterans community was facing some difficult challenges. Through your leadership, the Department has met those challenges head-on. ‘The Board of Veterans Affairs commends you and your staff for your complete dedication of service to Wisconsin's veterans and their families. We offer you our universal support, Thank you for your efforts and so many successes in reaching out to serve our veierans and their families. (August 16, 2005 Letter (originally published at http://www.vvispolities.com/1006/ 050901dva.pdf).) 15. Mr, Scocos’ effective administrations and leadership of WDVA also was acknowledged by the Board of the Department in raising his salary in 200, DRAMATIC CHANGES IN THE WDVA BOARD 16. Mr. Scovos was appointed WDVA Secretary by a bi-partisan Board in 2003, That Board included: (@) Kathleen Marschman; (b) Ken Wendt; (©) Walter Stenavich; (@) Mack Hughes; (©). Doug Bradley; (Peter Moran; and(@) Donald Heiliger. 17, With only one exception, following Mr. Scocos’ appointment, the Board has entirely changed. Below is a list of appointments: (a) Marvin J, Freedman, appointed June 24, 2004; (b) Rodney C. Moen, appointed May 1, 2005; (©) Marcia M. Anderson, appointed May 1, 2007; (@ Daniel J. Naylor, appointed May 1, 2007; (©) Peter J. Moran, appointed July 2, 2003 (pre-Mr. Scocos appointment); (f) Jacqueline A. Guthrie, appointed May 1, 2007; and (g) David F. Boetcher, nominated 2009, not yet approved; (“New WDVA Board”). 18. It is a Statutory requirement that members of the WDVA Board be qualified Veterans pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 45.01(12). 19. Marcia Anderson does not satisfy the criteria of Wis. Stat, § 45.01(12)(a-j), as she has not served in active duty for a sufficient period of time or met any other requirement to qualify, 20. Prior to her appointment, Governor James Doyle was informed that Ms. Anderson \was not qualified to hold the position to which Governor nominated her. Nonethel: 3s, he refused to withdraw that nomination. REGULATORY PROTECTIONS FOR THE WDVA SECRETARY 21. In part to ensure that WDVA remains an advocate for Wisconsin Veterans, and to prevent partisan gamesmanship, the WDVA adopted certain explicit protocols that required,prior to the dismissal of a Secretary, advance notice, public meetings and an opportunity to be heard. That regulation provided: 4.09. Removal. An action to remove the Department Secretary may be initiated by referral to a special committee appointed by the Board Chairperson, with the approval of a majority of the Board members present at a meeting or appointed upon the request of four Board members. If a special committee is appointed, it shall determine whether the grounds for removal are non-discriminatory. The committee, or, if no committee is appointed, the Board, upon the approval of a majority of Board members present at a meeting, may initiate an action to remove the Department Secretary by Motion to Remove. The Motion to Remove shall state clearly the reasons for removal and shall be served on the Board and on the Department Secretary no less than thirty days before the Board meeting at which the Motion will be heard. The Motion shall be heard at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting, unless the Board Chairperson determines that exigent circumstances exist. The Motion to Remove shall be heard at an open meeting, at which the Department Secretary shall have the opportunity to be heard. The Department Secretary may be represented by counsel of his or her choice at the meeting, Any motions to adjourn the meeting brought by the Department Secretary to enable him or her to respond to allegations presented at the meeting shall be granted for a reasonable time, to be determined by the Board Chairperson. Notwithstanding the Department Secretary's right to respond to the Motion at an open meeting, any special committee appointed under this section and the Board, retains its right to convene in closed session under the authority of s.19. 85(1 )( c) to discuss the Secretary's performance or the Motion, The Department Secretary serves at the pleasure of the Board outside of the classified service, as provided at 8.15.05(1}(b). The intent of this section is to provide an orderly, fair process for the removal of the Department Sccretary. The Department Secretary may be removed from office only by a vote of five Board members present at any Board meeting. (“Protected Benefit”). (Rules of Procedure, Board of Veterans Affairs.) 22, While Mr. Scocos’ was out of the country on his 2nd Deployment to active military service in [raq, the New WDVA Board revoked the Protected Benefit. 23. The New WDVA Board’s revocation of the Protected Benefit was done with the full knowledge that this was an elimination of a protection afforded to Mr. Scocos as Secretary. dois24, ‘The New WDVA Board revocation of the Protected Benefit apparently was intended by each of the members of the New WDVA Board to make it easier or to otherwise facilitate their ability to remove Mr. Scocos from his position as Secretary, 25. On information and belief, James Stewart, WDVA legal counsel, and Kenneth Black, then-Acting Secretary, conspired with the New WDVA Board in the revocation of the Protected Benefit, fully understanding or believing that they would personally benefit by the removal of Mr. Scocos. By his removal, both Mr. Stewart and Mr, Black could, and did, assure themselves employment at significant and substantial salaries and benefits, 26, Mr, Black, despite serious issues concerning his administration at the Department during Mr. Scocos’ 2nd Deployment, which were the subject of an ongoing investigation, was named Secretary by the new WDVA Board within minutes of Mr. Scocos” purported termination ‘on November 24, 2009. (The prior appointment of Mr. Scocos in 2003 occurred only after a lengthy application process, investigation and national search.) PURPORTED REMOVAL OF SECRETARY SCOCOS. 27, ‘On November 24, 2009, the following members of the WDVA Board voted to remove Mr. Scocos as WDVA Secretary—Anderson, Guthrie, Moran, Moen and Naylor. 28. At no time prior to the Ist Deployment was Mr. Scovos notified in writing of any cause for his dismissal 29. At no time prior to the 2nd Deployment was Mr. Seocos notified in writing of any cause for his dismissal. 30, At no time prior to November 24, 2009 was Mr. Scocos notified in writing of any cause for his dismissal -10-31. The vote of the New WDVA Board to remove Mr, Scocos as Secretary contains no statement of a cause for his dismissal. 32. The Protected Benefit process of Section 4.09 described above, was not followed prior to the vote of the New WDVA Board to remove Mr. Scocos as Secretary. INSUFFICIENT NUMBER OF DIRECTORS TO TERMINATE SECRETARY 33. Five members of the WDVA Board must vote to remove a Secretary. Rules of Procedure, Board of Veterans Affairs § 4.09. (As in effect at time of 2nd Deployment) and Rules of Procedure, Board of Veterans Affairs Section 4.12 (As purportedly in effect November 2009). 34. As Ms, Anderson is not a qualified Veteran, she can not be a member of the WDVA Board. Her vote can not be counted toward the required five for removal. 35. _ Mr. Scocos has a clear, specific legal right to the protection afforded under this, Rule, and the duty sought to be enforced by this Rule is positive and plain. OPEN MEETINGS VIOLATIONS 36. _ The amended notice of the November 24, 2009 meeting indicated that a closed, secret session would be called pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.85(1)(c) (“Invalid Notice”), 37. A closed, secret session was called by the New WDVA Board during the course of the November 24, 2009 meeting. In that closed, secret session, the New WDVA Board discussed and considered the dismissal of Secretary Scocos. As such, it was subject to the provisions of Wis. Stat. § 19.85(1)(b) as that provision relates to “dismissal, demotion... or discipline.” 38. Had the closed, secret session of the new WDVA Board been properly noticed, Secretary Scocos would have demanded that those behind-closed-doors, secret deliberations and ailsdiscussions be held in public, as was his right under Wis, Stat. § 19.85(1)(b). Those behind- closed-doors secret deliberations and discussions are unequivocally barred when an employee requests “an open meeting be held.” 39. On information and belief, the Board purposely noticed the November 24, 2009 ‘meeting in a manner so as to avoid the obligation to hold the meeting in public. 40. On information and belief, prior to the public vote to dismiss Mr. Scocos, members of the New WDVA Board met by e-mail or otherwise in violation of the Open Meetings Act. 41, On information and belief, Mr. Stewart and Mr. Black were informed prior to the public vote of November 24, 2009 that Mr. Scocos would be dismissed. 42. The “public” vote for dismissal on November 24, 2009 was a sham as the New WDVA Board had conspired privately to dismiss Mr. Scocos, and had extensively discussed his dismissal and its consequences in closed secret sessions or other meetings. 43. On information and belief, prior to the “public” vote for dismissal, directions had already been given to change the locks on Mr. Scocos” door, lockdown his computer and otherwise immediately appoint Mr. Black as Secretary. ATTEMPT BY BOARD AND OTHERS TO PREVENT INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION 44, On or around October 27, 2009, Mr. Scocos, as WDVA Secretary, appointed Gary Wistiom, a retired Colonel and former member of the Inspector General Office of the United States Air Force to undertake an independent investigation of the conduct of the Department, particularly during, but not limited to, activities that occurred during the time of Mr. Scocos’ 2nd Deployment (“Wistrom Investigation”). The Wistrom Investigation included anindependent examination of the firing of the Commandant at the Wisconsin Veteran Home at King and the adequacy of internal policies/procedures. 45. The Wistrom Investigation was to be concluded prior to December 11, 2009 and his report was to be made public. 46. Mr. Scocos sought to appoint legal counsel to advise Colonel Wistrom from within the Department, but legal counsel refused to participate, claiming, in part, that they may have a conflict—presumably from their own complicity in improper activities of the Department. Accordingly, Mr. Scocos sought and obtained independent legal counsel from the Wisconsin Public Defenders Office to provide advice to Colonel Wistrom. In addition, in order to assure that the Wistrom Investigation was properly undertaken within Mr, Scocos’ authority, Mr. Scocos consulted with the Office of the Attomey General of the State of Wisconsin and they confirmed that such an internal, independent investigation, was proper. 47. Marcia Anderson, one of the Defendants and purported member of the New WDVA Board, explicitly complained to Mr. Scocos about the Wistrom Investigation and demanded it be terminated. Mr. Scocos refused to terminate the Wistrom Investigation. 48. Within minutes of the dismissal of Mr. Scocos by the New WDVA Board, Mr. Black, on behalf of the New WDVA Board, directed Colonel Wistrom not only to terminate the independent Wistrom Investigation into the activities of the Department and its employees (including Mr. Black), but directed as well that the records of that investigation be immediately tumed-over to him. INT TIONAL VIOLATIONS OF VETERANS RIGHTS 49. The New WDVA Board is aware of the Statutes and Rules that apply to Veterans.50. John Scocos, as a Veteran, is entitled to the protections afforded by those Statutes and Rules, 51. Among the protections afforded Veterans are those explicit protections of USERRA and the protections of Wis. Stat, § 321.64. Each of those statutes require a demonstration of “cause” for dismissal of an employee at any time within one year of that ‘employee's return from active military service. 52. At no time prior to his purported dismissal as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs did the New WDVA Board provide written notice to Mr. Scocos of a “for cause” reason for his dismissal. 53. Atno time prior to his purported dismissal as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs did the New WDVA Board provide notice to Mr, Seocos in any respect of a “for cause” reason for his dismissal, 34, ‘The New WDVA Board could not, as a matter of law, dismiss Mr. Scocos without cause on November 24, 2009, 55. The Motion or other purported action terminating Mr. Scocos’ employment as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Veteran’s Affairs contains no statement of a reason for the dismissal, and does not contain any statement of cause for termination, 56. ‘The provisions of Section 4.09, of the Rules of Procedure, Board of Veterans Affairs, as in effect at the time of the 2nd Deployment were not followed by the New WDVA Board in the purported termination process of Mr. Scocos, 57. Because the WDVA Board did not dismiss Mr. Scocos for cause and did not obtain the requisite total of five votes, among other illegal acts, it has, without authority, removed him from that to which he is entitled. And, as a result of Mr. Scocos’ illegal dismissal. -14-the Veterans of Wisconsin, Mr. Scocos and the public have and will continue to suffer substantial harm, absent a writ of mandamus directing the WDVA Board to retrace its illegal steps, vacating its proceedings, and removing the obstacles which it has unlawfully placed in Mr. Scocos’ way. There is no other adequate remedy at law, except by a Writ directing Mr. Scocos be reinstated as Secretary of the Department of Veterans A fiairs ‘THE NEW WDVA BOARD DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A VETERAN BASED ON MILITARY SERVICE 58. Mr. Scocos, as a then Colonel in the U.S, Army, was called up to active duty as described in the Ist and 2nd Deployments. 59, The New WDVA Board’s willful discrimination against Mr. Scocos based on his military services is demonstrated not only by the facts stated above, but by additional facts and circumstances: (@) During the time of his 2nd Deployment, while he was absent, the New WDVA Board, conspired to and did change the rules applicable to Mr. Scocos as Secretary. (b) Mr. Boetcher, a nominee to the New WDVA Board, admitted publicly that the New WDVA Board was displeased with Mr. Scocos active military service. (©) MEDICAL INSURANCE TERMINATION: Mr. Scocos" son, Andreas, has a serious heart condition that requires medical care on a regular basis, While Mr. Scocos was on active military duty during his 2nd Deployment, on information and belief the Defendant, New WDVA Board member and Board Chairman, Marvin Freedman sought to cause and did cause Mr Scocos health insurance to be terminated. Mr. Freedman knew or should@ have known that termination of a family’s health insurance, while their father/husband was serving his country from remote and dangerous locations overseas would cause (and did cause) extraordinary anguish, severe emotional distress and hardship to Mr. Scocos and his family. Mr. Freedman, Mr. Black and others, though they knew of that termination made no effort to contact then-Colonel Scocos, choosing instead to, with unimaginable cruelty, cause his son, Andreas, and wife, Kelly, to suffer because they knew, or should have known then-Colonel Scocos’ military service would make it difficult and time consuming for him to address those matters from overseas. A simple phone call or e-mail to alert him to a problem, for example, would have avoided a life threatening result for his then-six-year-old son, Andreas. That termination of his insurance was entirely wrongful, and after Mr. Scocos intervened from his overseas base in Baghdad, the insurance was reinstated. ‘THANKSGIVING WEEK TERMINATION. On information and belief, the members of the New WDVA Board were upset that Mr. Scocos retumed from active service and immediately retumed to his position as, Secretary administering the Department as he had since 2003. The New WDVA Board, in part, in order to show the Secretary who is boss, and ina bald exercise of unbridled and improper power intended to cause great emotional injury, pain and suffering to Mr. Scocos, his wife Kelly, and his children, Costa, Andreas and Chloe, conspired to fire him the week of Thanksgiving. They knew, or reasonably should have known that Mr. -16-© (0) () ny Scocos was not with his family the prior year at Thanksgiving (or during the holiday season), as he was serving his country in an overseas combat zone. The cruelty of that act cannot be explained except by actual malice toward Mr, Scocos’ military service using that unique nature of service away from his family to cause him harm Asa board and individuals charged with serving the Veterans community, the New WDVA Board was to be an advocate for that community, yet its members have repeatedly complained about Mr. Scocos seeking additional funds for Veterans, Members of the New WDVA Board, Mr. Black, and Mr. Stewart have attempted to prevent, obfuscate or terminate the Wistrom Investigation into actions of the Department while Mr. Scocos was on active military service, Mr. Scocos has exceptional credibility with Veterans’ organizations, in part, as a consequence of his continued active service. Members of the New WDVA Board demanded he not talk with the media as Secretary on his return, apparently believing that very credibility, in contrast to the New WDVA’s Board lack of credibility, would be a detriment to the reputations of the New WDVA Board members. ‘On information and belief, while Mr. Scocos served on active duty and after his retum from active duty, Mr. Black, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Freedman and other members of the New WDVA Board conspired to assure -17-@ oO 6) themselves of ongoing positions by planning a process for dismissal of Mr. Scocos. ‘While Mr. Scocos was overseas on active duty in his 2nd Deployment, and thus unable to defend himself, the New WDVA Board initiated a series of purported performance reviews ofhim. The New WDVA Board made no attempt to contact Mr. Scocos about his performance during the 2nd Deployment. While Mr. Scocos was overseas on active duty in his 2nd Deployment, Mr. Kenneth Black and Mr. James Stewart, with the full knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the New WDVA Board, made accusations concerning various matters in the administration of the Department and forwarded certain matters to the Wisconsin Department of Justice directed at Mr. Scocos, without prior notice to or consultation with then-Colonel Scocos, ‘The New WDVA Board and Mr. Kenneth Black explicitly terminated the Wistrom Investigation within minutes of the purported termination of Mr. Scovos. On information and belief, they feared the Wistrom Investigation malfeasance and/or inadequate and might have revealed thy inappropriate administration of the Department of Veterans A fairs during Mr. Scocos’ 2nd Deployment, or it may have revealed their actual malice, willful disregard or complicity in violations of the applicable statutes and rules in the administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs during Mr. Scocos* 2nd Deployment. On information and belief, they feared the -18-Wistrom Investigation might reveal their actual malice toward Mr. Scocos and his service in the military and their willful disregard of the statutes and rules intended to protect retuming Veterans. JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF RIGHTS IS ESSENTIAL 60. An actual and existing controversy, ripe for adjudication, exists between Mr. Scocos and the Defendants regarding the dismissal or Mr. Scocos and the violation of various State and Federal laws. 61. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the circumstances in order that the Mr. Scocos may determine his legal rights pursuant to the laws discussed above, specifically that Mr. Scocos is the proper Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Based upon the facts set forth herein, Mr. Scocos has a reasonable probability of success on the merits 62. ‘This action is proper for declaratory judgment pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 806.04. 63. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek and are entitled to a declaration of rights as set forth more fully below. COUNT I (Against all Defendants) (REQUEST FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS - VIOLATION OF RULES OF PROCEDURE, BOARD OF VETERANS AFFAIRS § 4.12) 64, Paragraphs 1-63 are hereby incorporated as if fully stated 65. The New WDVA Board action to terminate Mr. Scocos did not satisfy the obligations of Rules of Procedure, Board of Veterans Affairs § 4.12, in that there were not the required five votes for termination -19-(REQUEST FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS - VIOLATIONS OF WIS. STAT. § 321.64) 66. Paragraphs 1-63 are hereby incorporated as if fully stated, 67. The New WDVA Board action to terminate Mr. Scocos was an illegal act or failed to comply with the law as it failed to meet the obligations of Wis. Stat. § 321.64. COUNT I (Against all Defendants) (REQUEST FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS - VIOLATIONS OF UNIFORMED SERVICES EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT 38 U.S.C. § 4316) 68, Paragraphs 1-63 are hereby incorporated as if fully stated. 69. The New WDVA Board action to terminate Mr. Scocos was an illegal act or failed to comply with the law as it failed to meet the obligations of 38 U.S.C. § 4316. COUNT IV (Against All Defendants) (REQUEST FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS - VIOLATIONS OF UNIFORMED SERVICES EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT 38 U.S.C. § 4311) 70. Paragraphs 1-63 are hereby incorporated as if fully stated 71. The New WDVA Board action to terminate Mr. Scocos was an illegal act or failed to comply with the law as it failed to meet the obligations of 38 U.S.C. § 4311. COUNT V (Against All Defendants) (REQUEST FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS - ILLEGAL MEETINGS) 72, Paragraphs 1-63 are hereby incorporated as if fully stated 73. ‘The New WDVA Board meeting of November 24, 2009 included a secret, closed: door session at which the dismissal of Mr. Scocos was discussed in direct violation of the Wisconsin Open Meetings laws. -20-74. The amended notice of the New WDVA Board meeting of November 24, 2009 ‘was invalid and the actions taken were accordingly illegal or otherwise improper. 75. The New WDVA Board meeting of November 24, 2009 was a sham and illegal in that the New WDVA Board had repeatedly met by e-mail or otherwise in violation of the Wisconsin Open Meetings laws. COUNT VI (Against All Defendants) (DECLARATORY RELIEF ~ VIOLATIONS OF RULE OF PROCEDURE, BOARD OF VETERANS AFFAIRS § 4.12) 76. Paragraphs 1-63 are hereby incorporated as if fully stated. 77. Mr. Scocos is entitled to a declaration that the New WDVA Board action to terminate Mr. Scocos did not satisfy the obligations of Rule of Procedure, Board of Veterans Affairs § 4.12, in that there were not the required five votes for termination, COUNT VIT (Against All Defendants) (DECLARATORY RELIEF ~ VIOLATIONS OF WIS. STAT. § 321.64) 78. Paragraphs 1-63 are hereby incorporated as if fully stated. 79. The New WDVA Board action to terminate Mr. Scocos was an illegal act or failed to comply with the law as it failed to meet the obligations of Wis. Stat. § 321.64, COUNT vu (Against all Defendants) (DECLARATORY RELIEF - VIOLATIONS OF UNIFORMED SERVICES EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT. 38 U.S.C. § 4316) 80. Paragraphs 1-63 are hereby incorporated as if fully stated. 81. Mr. Scocos is entitled to a declaration that the New WDVA Board action to terminate Mr. Scocos was an illegal act or failed to comply with the law as it failed to meet the obligations of 38 U.S.C. § 4316.COUNT IX (Against All Defendants) (DECLARATORY RELIEF — VIOLATIONS OF UNIFORMED SERVICES EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT. 38 U.S.C. § 4311) 82, Paragraphs 1-63 are hereby incorporated as if fully stated 83. Mr. Scocos is entitled to a declaration that the New WDVA Board action to terminate Mr. Scocos was an illegal act or failed to comply with the law as it failed to meet the obligations of 38 U.S.C. § 4311. COUNT X (Against All Defendants) (DECLARATORY RELIEF - ILLEGAL MEETINGS) 84, Paragraphs 1-63 are-hereby incorporated as if fully stated 85. Mr. Scocos is entitled to a declaration that the New WDVA Board meeting of November 24, 2009 included a secret, closed-door session at which the dismissal of Mr. Scocos was discussed in direct violation of the Wisconsin Open Meetings laws. 86. Mr. Scocos is entitled to a declaration that the amended notice of the New WDVA Board meeting of November 24, 2009 was invalid and the actions taken were accordingly illegal or otherwise improper. 87. Mr. Scocos is entitled to a declaration that the New WDVA Board meeting of November 2: 009 was a sham and illegal in that the New WDVA Board had repeatedly met by €-mail or otherwise in violation of the Wisconsin Open Meetings laws. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, John A. Scocos, respecifully requests as follows: A. A Writ of Mandamus issue on each of Counts I-V directing, at a minimum, the WDVA Board to vacate their unauthorized proceedings against Mr. Seocos and restore him to that which he is already appointed; -22-A Writ of Mandamus issue on each of Counts I-V directing, at a minimum, the immediate reinstatement of Mr. Scocos to the position of Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs retroactive to November 24, 2009, with all benefits and pay as were then in effect; A Declaration on each of Counts VI-X that, at a minimum, the violations therein asserted are violations of law and that Mr. Scocos is entitled to the position of Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Afiuirs retroactive to November 24, 2009, with all benefits and pay as were then in effect; An appropriate Injunction issued, both preliminary and permanent, to direct the Defendants to take those actions as necessary or required by the Writ of Mandamus; to enforce the obligations that necessarily follow from the Writ of Mandamus or Declaratory Judgment; to cease illegal activities and to otherwise do Justice, enforce the law and enforce the rulings of this Court; An award of attomeys’ fees and costs; and Grant such other and further relief as may be just and appropriate. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff requests a trial by jury of all issues so triable. Dated this 10th day of December, 2009.MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP l (8 R Feouipis, SBN 1005341 JNatfian L. Moenck, SBN 1066208 One South Pinckney Street, Suite 700 P.O. Box 1806 Madison, WI 53701-1806 Telephone: (608) 257-3501 Fax: (608) 283-2275 Attomeys for Plaintiff John A. Scocos -24-VERIFICATION STATE OF WISCONSIN) COUNTY OF DANE ; * 1, John A. Scocos, verify that the factual allegations set forth in the foregoing Verified Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, I believes them to be true. ‘This Verification is based upon my personal knowledge and records within my custody and control. Dated: December 10, 2009 John A. Scocos Subscribed: and swom to before me this 10th day of December, 2009. EAN Wy Notary Public, State of Wj My Commission expires: -25-