You are on page 1of 4

United States District Court District of Oklahoma Civil Docket No. _______ Charles A Dyer Plaintiff vs.

Judge Enos Defendant VERIFIED COMPLAINT

Defendant individually and in his official capacity as Justice of the Superior Court of Stephens County, JURISDICTIONAL BASIS JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT Plaintiff Charles A. Dyer, claims federal jurisdiction pursuant to Article III 2 which extends the jurisdiction to cases arising under the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff brings this suit pursuant to Title 42 U.S. Code 1983 for violations of certain protections guaranteed to him by the First, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the federal Constitution, by the defendant under color of law in his capacity as a judge in the Superior Court of Stephens County. PARTIES Plaintiff, Charles A. Dyer is a natural person, currently being unlawfully detained at the Stephens County Sheriff's Detention Center. Located at 11tt Street, Duncan OK defendant is a Judge presiding at Stephens County Court in Duncan Oklahoma 101 South 11th Street Room 134, Duncan, OK STATEMENT OF CASE Defendant Judge Enos has violated his oath of office by his gross negligence and judicial misconduct against Charles Dyer. Defendant Judge Enos has violated Plaintiff Charles Dyer's rights to due process, and committed acts of treason against Charles Dyers. Defendant Judge Enos authorized the FBI to track Charles Allen Dyer dyer when this is a state felony. The FBI imposed on the American people through force, intimidation and threat all without any court issued warrant. (EXHIBIT ATTACHED) Defendant Judge Enos allowed the FBI to use local sheriff deputies, and SWAT to act against the American People and Charles Dyer all without proper affidavit, or a court ordered warrant, and out of their lawful jurisdiction. This created a dangerous situation for all involved, putting lives at risk.

Defendant Judge Enos denied Dyer bail the first 4 months Dyer was incarcerated. . Judge Enos profiled Dyer and by his personal opinion and declared Dyer a flight risk due to the groups that Dyer was affiliated with. Excessive bail set at 1 million dollars, which violated Dyers due process. Bail is not to be used, or to make it an instrument of oppression. (EXHIBIT ATTACHED) Enos denied Charles the right to adequate and competent council. Dyer was threatened that if he fired his attorney, his bond would be revoked and he would be arrested. (EXHIBIT ATTACHED) Dyer was denied a change of venue by Judge Enos after violations made against Dyer during the first trial by DA Jason Hicks. (EXHIBIT ATTACHED) Dyer was denied a continuance of 1 week by Defendant Judge Enos, after Dyer's house was burnt to the ground.(EXHIBIT ATTACHED) Enos allowed the District Attorney Jason Hicks to mislead the jury with false hearsay and fabricated claims of evidence without proper proof to back claims. (EXHIBIT ATTACHED) After first trial Charles Dyer was ordered by the defendant not to speak about anything in relation to his case or he would be arrested. This is a clear violation of Charles Dyers 1st amendment rights to freedom of speech. (EXHIBIT ATTACHED) Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct A judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority. A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct shall take appropriate action. The Rules of the Oklahoma Code of Judicial Conduct are rules of reason that should be applied consistent with constitutional requirements, statutes, other court rules, and decisional law, and with due regard for all relevant circumstances. The Rules should not be interpreted to impinge upon the essential independence of judges in making judicial decisions.

PRAYER As a Federal civil servants, Judge Enos took an oath of office by which he swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution not only establishes our system of government, it actually defines the work role for Federal employees - "to establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty." The Rules are binding and enforceable, however, it is not contemplated that every violation of a Rule will result in imposition of discipline. In this Prayer, whether discipline should be imposed should be determined through a reasonable and reasoned application of the Rule(s), and should depend upon factors such as the seriousness all the listed violations, the facts and circumstances that existed at the time these violations took place, the extent of any pattern of improper activity, whether there have been previous violations of the Rules, and the effect of the improper activity upon the judicial system or others. Wherefore, premiss considered, plaintiff and public citizens (SEE EXHIBIT) prays that court upholds their duties and honor the oath of office all public servants have sworn too. I am asking of you to serve the people and immediately honor this motion by dropping all charges against Charles Dyer, and holding the guilty parties accountable for these acts of treason against the American people and Charles Dyer. Respectfully Submitted, _________________________________ (see attached petition of signatures all in support of Charles Dyer)