Scumbusters

Let’s start with count I:

COUNT I: 42 U.S.C. 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION
(Fourth Amendment Search & Seizure)

Defendants: Deborah Clawson and Officer Colbert

Allegation: A. On March 9,2005, the defendant police officers were acting under color of state law when they arrested the plaintiff Angela Church in her home for kidnapping
C. W. and her daughter.

Response: By frivolous attorney Elizabeth Warner’s own “Factual Allegations” contained in Allegations 16-19, she clearly stated that Angela Church was not residing/living at the address she was found at. She clearly stated it was the residence of Tristanne - ooops, I mean “TS”. Therefore, the permission of Tristanne - oops, I mean “TS” to enter the home was all that was needed. Attorney Elizabeth Warner is clearly nuts in her own right.

Allegation: B. The defendants coerced a civilian agent, Tristanne - oops, I mean “T.S.”, to gain entry into the plaintiffs home and then followed the agent into the home without the plaintiffs consent.

Response: I’ll leave her to her proofs since the allegation of coercion is just that- a statement with no factual basis or evidence of coercion. And again, it wasn’t Angela’s home, it was Tristanne’s - oops, I mean “TS”’s home.

Allegation: C. There were no exigent circumstances to justify the failure of the defendants to get an arrest warrant.

Response: A suicidal kidnapper doesn’t constitute “exigent circumstances”?? Again, attorney warner is clearly in denial.

Allegation: D. The plaintiffs arrest violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free of and unreasonable seizure of her person and search of her home by:

(1) Arresting her without probable cause to believe she committed the crime of kidnapping as defined by Mich. Comp. Laws 750.349 (2004);

Response: Having just fled a hospital while under suicide watch with police officers there to assist and then kidnapping a poor woman and her baby by force to drive to a home she didn’t live at doesn’t constitute probable cause? No warrant was necessary and attorney Elizabeth Warner is completely nuts once again.

Allegation: (2) Arresting her in her home without an arrest warrant.

Response: It wasn’t the home of Angela Church. She was only a guest there, even by your own previous admission. Laughable beyond all words.

Allegation: E. The plaintiffs arrest caused the following damages to the plaintiff and to her minor children B.K., K.C., and M.C.:

(1) The plaintiff had a loss of liberty and loss of reputation from being arrested and incarcerated in the St. Joseph County jail;

Response: The minor children were traumatized by the actions of Angela Church, not the arresting officers and want no part of this lawsuit. And Angela Church lost her reputation when she became a drug addict who ran around the local Taco Bell naked, let alone a psychotic kidnapper.

(2) At the jail the plaintiff was subjected to prisoner abuse that included physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional injury, and other civil rights violations of her rights to privacy and medical treatment described in [paragraphs] 32,48, and 54;

Response: What abuse? What physical injury? What pain and suffering? What emotional injury? Violations of her right to medical treatment? She refused medical treatment when she fled the hospital. Allegations are all lies and make zero sense.

Allegation: 3) The plaintiff lost physical custody of her three minor children B.C., K.C., and M.C. for a prolonged period of time;

Response: Untrue. The parental rights of Angela Church have been permanently terminated. A termination that was affirmed all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Thank you to the jury members and judge Michael Shumaker for allowing my children to lead normal lives now. Although, one could argue that “forever” is indeed a “prolonged period of time”.

Allegation: (4) The creation of allegations and evidence that has been used against the plaintiff in a child protection case on the minor children to charge her with child neglect and to make placement decisions for the children described in [paragraphs] 50-54;

Response: The allegation as stated is completely impossible to understand. Moot point now since the children are happy, successful students who are safe from their former mother and free to live a normal, peaceful life full of happiness instead of living in constant fear.

Allegation: (5) The damages to the minor children described in [paragraph] 47;

Response: Let’s stop with the silliness involving my children Ms. Warner. Any damages to them were inflicted by their mother or friends of their mother. And why pretend to throw a million dollars their way, when you obviously know they have no standing in this case. Pretending to care for her children? Great idea Angela Church. I guess you didn’t care for their well-being when you settled your last suit out of court and gave your former children NOTHING. Quit pretending to have an ounce of concern for your former children.

Allegation: (6) Emotional damages to the plaintiff described in [paragraph] 46.

Response: Angela Church was emotionally damaged long before the incident in question. Blaming jails and police officers won’t help. Nothing will. She’s damaged for life and will never, ever change.

Allegation: COUNT II 42 U.S.C. 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION
(Fourth Amendment Search & Seizure)

Defendant: Three Rivers Police Department

A. The defendant is a city police department and so is a municipality under federal civil rights laws acting under color of state law.

B. As of March 9,2005, the defendant had an official policy or custom that constitutes a deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to have an arrest warrant issued before she can be arrested in her home.

Response: No knowledge other than to once again say that it WAS NOT HER HOME BY YOUR OWN ADMISSIONS, Liz.

Allegation: C. The defendant’s indifference to her constitutional rights was a failure to train its police officers on the constitutional requirement for an arrest warrant to arrest the subject in her home.

Response: With a pathetic allegation like that, my guess is that you’re praying for a settlement. It’s not gonna happen this time, Angela and Elizabeth. You will need to actually establish DELIBERATE indifference on the part of the defendant and you know you will not be able to. You have absolutely NOTHING to support such a frivolous claim.

Allegation: D. On March 9,2005, the defendant’s inadequate training was a cause of a constitutional violation against the plaintiff by police officers employed by the defendant because a reasonable magistrate would not have issued an arrest warrant due to the lack of any evidence that the plaintiff committed the kidnapping crime for which she was arrested.

Response: I wonder if there is a law regarding inadequate legal training?

Allegation: E. The constitutional violation caused damages to the plaintiff and her minor children including those described in paragraph I (E) above.

More legal filler. She was running out of ideas.

Counts 3 through 11 to be continued…

Trackback URI | Comments RSS